Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution

, Volume 66, Issue 4, pp 767–781 | Cite as

Collections of Mungbean [Vigna radiata) (L.) R. Wilczek] and urdbean [V. mungo (L.) Hepper] in Vavilov Institute (VIR): traits diversity and trends in the breeding process over the last 100 years

  • Marina Burlyaeva
  • Margarita Vishnyakova
  • Maria Gurkina
  • Konstanin Kozlov
  • Cheng-Ruei Lee
  • Chau-Ti Ting
  • Roland Schafleitner
  • Sergey Nuzhdin
  • Maria Samsonova
  • Eric von WettbergEmail author
Research Article


Mungbean (Vigna radiata) (L.) R.Wilczek and urdbean (V. mungo) (L.) Hepper are two warm-season legumes that are nutritionally dense and contribute to food security. Despite their value, they have historically been underutilized. The N. I. Vavilov’s All-Russian Institute of Plant Genetic Resources Vigna germplasm collection is particularly critical for these crops because it includes accessions acquired over a century, from before 1920 into the twenty-first century. Here we evaluate 986 accessions of V. radiata (822) and V. mungo (164) from the VIR collection to assess historical shifts before and after the Green Revolution in three of the most important traits for breeding: the maturity period, seed productivity per plant, and the weight of 1000 seeds. In addition, for the subset of 200 accessions collected in 1910–1926, another 23 morphological and agronomic traits have been evaluated. This examination allows us to assess differences among these two closely related species, reveals the differences in germplasm from different regions, and trace changes in phenotypic characters in accessions acquired at different times. Indian landraces, in the region of primary domestication and diversification of both crops, are the most phenotypically diverse. It is evident that phenotypic diversity has decayed over time, with shifts towards medium time to maturation and large-seeded types in more recently acquired accessions bred after the start of the Green Revolution. The substantial phenotypic variation in the collection indicates that a number of breeder-desired traits are present in the VIR collection, particularly in the older material pre-dating the advent of Green Revolution breeding.


Vigna radiata Vigna mungo Genebank Phenotypic variation Traits for breeding 



This work was supported by Russian Scientific Fund Project No. 18-46-08001 on the basis of a unique scientific installation Collection of plant genetic resources VIR. EvW is also supported by USDA Hatch funding through the Vermont State Experimental Station. CRL and CTT are supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan 107-2923-B-002-004-MY3.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10722_2019_760_MOESM1_ESM.docx (58 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 57 kb)
10722_2019_760_MOESM2_ESM.xls (238 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLS 238 kb)


  1. Ahlawat IPS, Sharma P, Singh U (2016) Production, demand and import of pulses in IndiaGoogle Scholar
  2. AVRDC (2015) Door opens to Myanmar. AVRDC East and Southeast latest news Shanhua. Accessed 25 Feb 2019
  3. Baligar VC, Fageria NK (2007) Agronomy and physiology of tropical cover crops. J Plant Nutr 30(8):1287–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burlyaeva MO, Gurkina MV, Tikhonova NI (2014) Katalog of the World VIR Collection. In: Mung bean and urd bean. Initial material for breeding with irrigation in the conditions of the Caspian lowland, SPb Issue, p 818.50 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  5. Burlyaeva MO, Gurkina MV, Chebukin PA, Kiseleva NA (2016) The international descriptors for species of the genus Vigna Savi. VIR, St.-Petersburg, p 90Google Scholar
  6. Chivenge P, Mabhaudhi T, Modi AT, Mafongoya P (2015) The potential role of neglected and underutilised crop species as future crops under water scarce conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12(6):5685–5711. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chowdhury RK, Chowdhury JB, Singh VP (1977) An amphidiploids between Vigna radiate var. radiata and Vigna mungo. Crop Improv 4:113–l14Google Scholar
  8. De Deepesh N, Krishnan R (1966) Studies on pachytene and somatic chromosomes ofPhaseolus mungo L. Genetica 37(1):581–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Descriptors for mung bean (1980) International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, (IBPGR), Rome, p 18Google Scholar
  10. Descriptors for Vigna mungo and V. radiata (1985) International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, (IBPGR), Rome, p 23Google Scholar
  11. Dikshit HK, Jhang T, Singh NK, Koundal KR, Bansal KC, Chandra N, Tickoo JL, Sharma TR (2007) Genetic differentiation of Vigna species by RAPD, URP and SSR markers. Biol Plant 51(3):451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ditmer EE (1937) Flora of cultivated plants. In: Wulff EW (ed) Phaseolus aureus (Roxb.) Piper–mung been. Leningrad, Moscow, pp 573–603Google Scholar
  13. Fuller MF (2004) The encyclopedia of farm animal nutrition. CABI Publishing Series, Wallingford, p 606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuller DO, Harvey EL (2006) The archaeobotany of Indian pulses: identification, processing and evidence of cultivation. Environ Archaeobot 11:218–246Google Scholar
  15. Gill AS, Verma MM, Dhaliwal HS, Sandhu TS (1983) Interspecific transfer of resistance to mungbean yellow mosaic virus from Vigna mungo to Vigna radiata. Curr Sci 52(1):31–33Google Scholar
  16. International Mungbean Improvement Network—World Vegetable Centre (2017)Google Scholar
  17. Jaaska V, Jaaska V (1989) Isoenzyme Differentiation between Asian Beans Vigna radiata and V. mungo. Biochemie und Physiologie der Pflanzen 185(1–2):41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jansen PCM (2006) Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper. Record from protabase. PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa), WageningenGoogle Scholar
  19. Kang YJ, Kim SK, Kim MY, Lestari P, Kim KH, Ha BK, Jun TH, Hwang WJ, Lee T, Lee J, Shim S (2014) Genome sequence of mungbean and insights into evolution within Vigna species. Nat Commun 5:p.ncomms6443Google Scholar
  20. Kim SK, Nair RM, Lee J, Lee S-H (2015) Genomic resources in mungbean for future breeding programs. Front Plant Sci 6:626. Google Scholar
  21. Krishna KR (2010) Agroecosystems: soils, climate, crops, nutrient dynamics and productivity. Apple Academic Press, New Jersey, p 552Google Scholar
  22. Mani BR (2004) Further evidence on Kashmir Neolithic in the light of recent excavations at Kanishkapura. J Interdiscip Stud Hist Archaeol 1(1):142Google Scholar
  23. Mogotsi KK (2006) Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek. In: Brink M, Belay G (eds) PROTA 1: Cereals and pulses/Céréales et légumes secs. [CD-Rom]. PROTA, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  24. Nair RM, Yang RY, Easdown WJ, Thavarajah D, Thavarajah P, Hughes JDA, Keatinge JDH (2013) Biofortification of mungbean (Vigna radiata) as a whole food to enhance human health. J Sci Food Agric 93(8):1805–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nath A, Maloo SR, Barman KK, Meena BL, Devi G, Yadav GS, Tak S (2017) Molecular characterization of green gram [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] for future breeding programme. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 6(6):1385–1398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Santala M, Power JB, Davey MR (1998) Genetic diversity in mung bean germplasm revealed by RAPD markers. Plant Breed 117:473–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schafleitner R, Nair RM, Rathore A, Wang YW, Lin CY, Chu SH, Lin PY, Chang JC, Ebert AW (2015) The AVRDC–the world vegetable center mungbean (Vigna radiata) core and mini core collections. BMC Genom 16(1):344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sen NK, Ghosh AK (1963) Interspecific hybridization between Phaseolus aureus RoxB. (Mung bean) and Ph. mungo L. (Urd bean). Bull Bot soc Bengal 14:1–4Google Scholar
  29. Shanmugasundaram S, Keatinge JDH, d Arros Hughes J (2009) The mungbean transformation diversifying crops, defeating malnutrition, vol 922. International Food Policy Research Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. Singh DP (1981) Breeding for resistance to diseases in greengram and blackgram. Theor Appl Genet 59:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sinskaya TN (1948) Species dynamics. M.-L. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  32. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Souframanien J, Gopalakrishna T (2006) ISSR and SCAR markers linked to the mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) resistance gene in blackgram [Vigna mungo(L.) Hepper]. Plant Breed 125:619–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tomooka N, Vaughan DA, Moss H, Mixted N (2002) The Asian Vigna: genus Vigna subgenus ceratotropis genetic resources. Kluwer, New York, p 270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vavilov NI (1929) Cultivated plants of the Khiva oasis. Bull Appl Bot Genet Breed 20:1–91Google Scholar
  36. Vishnyakova MA, Buravtseva TV, Bulyntsev SV, Burlyaeva MO, Semenova EV, Seferova IV, Alexandrova TG, Yankov II, Egorova GP, Gerasimova TV, Drugova EV (2010) Collection of world genetic resources of grain legumes: completion, conservation and study. Method Instr. SPb. p 141 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  37. Vishnyakova MA, Burlyaeva MO, Samsonova MG (2018) Green gram and black gram: prospects of cultivation and breeding in Russian Federation. Vavilovskii Zhurnal Genetiki i Selektsii = Vavilov J Genet Breed 22(8):957–966. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Williams JT, Haq N (2002) Global research on underutilized crops. An assessment of current activities and proposals for enhanced cooperation. ICUC, SouthamptonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.N. I. Vavilov All-Russian Institute of Plant Genetic Resources (VIR)St. PetersburgRussian Federation
  2. 2.VIR, Astrakhan BranchAstrakhanRussian Federation
  3. 3.Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic UniversitySt. PetersburgRussian Federation
  4. 4.National Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  5. 5.World Vegetable CenterTainanTaiwan
  6. 6.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  7. 7.University of VermontBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations