, Volume 106, Issue 1, pp 45–56 | Cite as

Segregation for performance in recombinant inbred populations resulting from inter-gene pool crosses of common bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.)

  • William C. Johnson
  • Paul Gepts


The germplasm of cultivated common bean exhibits a lower level of genetic diversity within each geographical gene pools (Mesoamerican and Andean) compared to that of the respective wild ancestors. Crosses between these two gene pools potentially provide a source of additional genetic diversity but their progenies have been characterized by phenotypic abnormalities and reduced productivity. In order to gain additional insights into this problem, we examined the segregation for performance in two recombinant inbred populations (RIPs) resulting from Mesoamerican × Andean crosses in three contrasting environments and two years. The two RIPs – ‘California Dark Red Kidney’ (of Andean origin) × ‘Yolano’ (Mesoamerican), n = 150, and A55 (Mesoamerican) × G122 (Andean), n = 67 – were grown in replicated field tests to assess the agronomic performance of each recombinant inbred line. Both populations exhibited, on average, greater days to maturity (DTM), lower biomass growth rate (above-ground dry weight/DTM), lower economic growth rate (seed yield/DTM), and lesser harvest index. In contrast with the conclusions of earlier experiments, there was no evidence from the field trials for a genetic association (due to linkage or pleiotropy) between seed weight and economic growth rate, but there may be a genetic association between seed weight and life cycle length. We compare the results of these studies with earlier experiments on inter-gene pool recombinant populations of common beans and relate our observations of diminished performance to models of speciation mechanisms.

exotic germplasm growth rate introgression seed weight speciation yield 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ali, M., M. Copeland, S. Elias & J. Kelly, 1995. Relationship between genetic distance and heterosis for yield and morphological traits in winter canola (Brassica napus L.). Theor Appl Genet 91: 118–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaver, J.S. & J.D. Kelly, 1994. Comparison of selection methods for dry bean populations derived from crosses between gene pools. Crop Sci 34: 34–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Debouck, D.G., O. Toro, O.M. Paredes, W.C. Johnson & P. Gepts, 1993. Genetic diversity and ecological distribution of Phaseolus vulgaris in northwestern South Africa. Econ Bot 47: 408–423.Google Scholar
  4. Dobzhansky, T., 1936. Studies on hybrid sterility. II. Localization of sterility factors in Drosophila pseudoobscura hybrids. Genetics 21: 112–135.Google Scholar
  5. Foolad, M.R. & A. Bassiri, 1983. Estimates of combining ability, reciprocal effects and heterosis for yield and yield components in a common bean diallel crosses. J Agri Sci (Cambridge) 100: 103–108.Google Scholar
  6. Freyre, R., R. Ríos, L. Guzmán, D. Debouck & P. Gepts, 1996. Ecogeographic distribution of Phaseolus spp. (Fabaceae) in Bolivia. Econ Bot 50: 195–215.Google Scholar
  7. Gepts, P. & F.A. Bliss, 1985. F1 hybrid weakness in the common bean: differential geographic origin suggests two gene pools in cultivated bean germplasm. J Hered 76: 447–450.Google Scholar
  8. Gepts, P., 1993. The use of molecular and biochemical markers in crop evolution studies. Evol Biol 27: 51–94.Google Scholar
  9. Gepts, P., 1998. Origin and evolution of common bean: past events and recent trends. J Amer Soc Hort Sci (in press).Google Scholar
  10. Ghaderi, A., M.W. Adams & A.M. Nassib, 1984. Relationship between genetic distance and heterosis for yield and morphological traits in dry edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) and faba beans (Vicia faba). Crop Sci 24: 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gutiérrez, J.A. & S.P. Singh, 1985. Heterosis and inbreeding depression in dry bush beans, Phaseolus vulgaris. Can J Plant Sci 65: 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guzmán, P., R.L. Gilbertson, R. Nodari, W.C. Johnson, S.R. Temple, D. Mandala, A.B.C. Mkandawire & P. Gepts, 1995. Characterization of variability in the fungus Phaeoisariopsis griseola subbests coevolution with the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Phytopathology 85: 600–607.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, W., C. Menéndez, R. Nodari, E.M.K. Koinange, S. Singh & P. Gepts, 1996. Association of a seed weight factor with the phaseolin seed storage protein locus across genotypes, environments, and genomes in Phaseolus — Vigna spp.: Sax (1923) revisited. J Quant Trait Loci 2: Article 5,–1905/sax1992.htm.Google Scholar
  14. Kami, J.A. & P. Gepts, 1994. Phaseolin nucleotide sequence diversity in Phaseolus. I. Intraspecific diversity in Phaseolus vulgaris. Genome 37: 751–757.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Koenig, R. & P. Gepts, 1989. Allozyme diversity in wild Phaseolus vulgaris: further evidence for two major centers of diversity. Theor Appl Genet 78: 809–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koinange, E.M.K. & P. Gepts, 1992. Hybrid weakness in wild Phaseolus vulgaris L. J Hered 83: 135–139.Google Scholar
  17. Kornegay, J., J.W. White & O.O. De la Cruz, 1992. Growth habit and gene pool effects on inheritance of yield in common bean. Euphytica 62: 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laing, D., P. Jones & J. Davis, 1984. Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. ). In: P. Goldsworthy & N. Fisher (Eds), The Physiology of Tropical Field Crops, pp. 305–351. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Link, W., B. Schill, A. Barbera, J. Cubero, A. Filipetti, L. Stringi, E. von Kittlitz & A. Melchinger, 1996. Comparison of intra-and inter-pool crosses in faba beans (Vicia faba). I. Hybrid performance and heterosis in Mediterranean and German environments. Plant Breed 115: 352–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lynch, M., 1991. The genetic interpretation of inbreeding depression and outbreeding depression. Evolution 45: 622–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moll, R., J. Lonnquist, J. Vélez Fortuno & E. Johnson, 1965. The relationship of heterosis and genetic divergence in maize. Genetics 52: 139–144.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Muller, H., 1940. Bearing of the Drosophila work on systematics. In: J. Huxley (Ed), The New Systematics, pp. 185–268. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. Murty, B. & I. Anand, 1965. Combining ability and genetic diversity in some varieties of Linum usitatissimum. Indian J Genet Plant Breed 26: 21–36.Google Scholar
  24. Nienhuis, J. & S.P. Singh, 1986. Combining ability analysis and relationships among yield, yield components and architectural traits in dry beans. Crop Sci 26: 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Orr, H., 1995. The population genetics of speciation: the evolution of hybrid incompatibilities. Genetics 139: 1805–1813.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Patiño, H. & S. Singh, 1989. Visual selection for seed yield in the F2 and F3 generations of nine common bean crosses. Annu Rept Bean Improv Coop 32: 79–89.Google Scholar
  27. Ramanujam, S., A. Tiwari & R. Mehra, 1974. Genetic divergence and hybrid performance in mung bean. Theor Appl Genet 45: 211–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. SAS Institute, 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03 Edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  29. Sexton, P., J.White & K. Boote, 1994. Yield-determining processes in relation to cultivar seed size of common bean. Crop Sci 34: 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shii, C.T., M.C. Mok, S.R. Temple & D.W.S. Mok, 1980. Expression of developmental abnormalities in hybrids of Phaseolus vulgaris L. J Hered 71: 218–222.Google Scholar
  31. Shonnard, G.C. & P. Gepts, 1994. Genetics of heat tolerance during reproductive development in common bean. Crop Sci 34: 1168–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Singh, S.P. A.J. Gutiérrez, 1984. Geographical distribution of the DL 1 and DL 2 genes causing hybrid dwarfism in Phaseolus vulgaris L., their association with seed size, and their significance to breeding. Euphytica 33: 337–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singh, S.P., C. Cajiao, J.A. Gutiérrez, J. Garía, M.A. Pastor-Corrales & F.J. Morales, 1989. Selection for seed yield in inter-gene pool crosses of common bean. Crop Sci 29: 1126–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Singh, S.P., P. Gepts & D.G. Debouck, 1991. Races of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L., Fabaceae). Econ Bot 45: 379–396.Google Scholar
  35. Singh, S.P., R. Nodari & P. Gepts, 1991. Genetic diversity in cultivated common bean. I. Allozymes. Crop Sci 31: 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singh, S.P. & C.A. Urrea, 1995. Inter-and intraracial hybridization and selection for seed yield in early generations of common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. Euphytica 81: 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Singh, S.P. & A. Molina, 1996. Inheritance of crippled trifoliolate leaves occurring in interracial crosses of common bean and its relationship with hybrid dwarfism. J Hered 87: 464–469.Google Scholar
  38. Skroch, P. & J. Nienhuis, 1995. Qualitative and quantitative characterization of RAPD variation among snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) genotypes. Theor Appl Genet 91: 1078–1085.Google Scholar
  39. Sonnante, G., T. Stockton, R.O. Nodari, V.L. Becerra Velásquez & P. Gepts, 1994. Evolution of genetic diversity during the domestication of common-bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Theor Appl Genet 89: 629–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sprecher, S. & M. Khairallah, 1989. Association of male sterility with gene pool recombinants in bean. Annu Rept Bean Improv Coop 32: 56–67.Google Scholar
  41. Weeden, N.F., 1984. Distinguishing among white-seeded bean cultivars by means of allozyme genotypes. Euphytica 33: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Welsh, W., W. Bushuk, W. Roca & S.P. Singh, 1995. Characterizatioin of agronomic traits and markers of recombinant inbred lines from intra-and interracial populations of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Theor Appl Genet 91: 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. White, J.W. & A. González, 1990. Characterization of the negative association between seed yield and seed size among genotypes of common bean. Field Crops Res 23: 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. White, J.W., S.P. Singh, C. Pino, M.J. Ríos B & I. Buddenhagen, 1992. Effects of seed size and photoperiod response on crop growth and yield of common bean. Field Crops Res 28: 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Xiao, J., J. Li, L. Yuan, S. McCouch & S. Tanksley, 1996. Genetic diversity and its relationship to hybrid performance and heterosis in rice as revealed by PCR-based markers. Theor Appl Genet 92: 637–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • William C. Johnson
    • 1
  • Paul Gepts
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agronomy and Range ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaDavisU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations