Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:26:46.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relations of carbon isotope discrimination and other physiological traits to yield in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) under rainfed conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. W. White ,
J. A. Castillo ,
J. R. Ehleringer ,
J. A. C. Garcia  and
S. P. Singh
J. W. White
Affiliation:
Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Apartado Aereo 6713, Cali, Colombia
J. A. Castillo
Affiliation:
Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Apartado Aereo 6713, Cali, Colombia
J. R. Ehleringer
Affiliation:
The University of Utah, Department of Biology, 201 Biology Building, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA
J. A. C. Garcia
Affiliation:
Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Apartado Aereo 6713, Cali, Colombia
S. P. Singh
Affiliation:
Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Apartado Aereo 6713, Cali, Colombia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Although direct selection for seed yield under water deficit can result in genetic gains in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), progress could be enhanced through selection for additional traits that are related to underlying mechanisms of adaptation to water deficit. Carbon isotope discrimination (Δ) has received considerable attention as an indicator of water use efficiency and adaptation to water deficit. To test the utility of Δ as a selection criterion, Δ and other traits were measured in F2 and F3 generations of a nine-parent diallel grown under rainfed conditions at two locations in Colombia with contrasting soil types. An irrigated trial was also conducted at one location. Significant (P 0·05) differences among parents, F2 and F3 were found for carbon isotope discrimination (Δ), leaf optical density (OD), leaf nitrogen (N) and potassium (K) concentrations, relative duration of pod-filling period (RDPF), shoot dry weight (SDW) and harvest index (HI). Effect of location and water regime and their interactions with genotype were also frequently significant. Heritability estimates, determined by regressing the F3 on the F2, ranged from 0·11±011 (S.E.) to 0·33 ±0·10 for OD, 0·22 ± 0·07 to 0·44±0·09 for N, 0·04±0·05 to 0·29±0·08 for K, 0·40 ± 0·08 to 0·43 ± 0·15 for RDPF and 0·30±0·22 to 1·00±0·24 for SDW. All values for Δ and HI did not differ significantly from zero. Correlations between seed yield and OD and RDPF were negative, whereas those with N, K, SDW, and HI were positive. For all traits, mean square values for general combining ability (GCA) were usuall significant and larger than those for specific combining ability (SCA). All significant GCA effects for Δ for ‘Rio Tibagi’, ‘San Cristobal 83’ and ‘Apetito’ were negative, while those for ‘Bayo Rio Grande’, ‘Bayo Criollo del Llano’, ‘Durango 222’ and BAT1224 were positive. Although Δappears unsuitable as an indirect criterion for selection for yield under water deficit, further study of genotypes exhibiting contrasting values of A might reveal differences in mechanisms of adaptation to water deficits, thus leading to other selection criteria or identification of valuable parental lines.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 122 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 275 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Blum, A. (1988). Plant Breeding for Stress Environments. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Casler, M. D. (1982). Genotype × environment interaction bias to parent-offspring regression heritability estimates. Crop Science 22, 540–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehleringer, J. R., White, J. W., Johnson, D. A. & Brick, M. (1990). Carbon isotope discrimination, photosynthetic gas exchange, and transpiration efficiency in beans and range grasses. Ada Oecologica 11, 611–625.Google Scholar
Ehleringer, J. R., Klassen, S., Clayton, C., Sherrill, D., Fuller-Holbrook, M., Fu, Q. & Cooper, T. A. (1991). Carbon isotope discrimination and transpiration efficiency in common bean. Crop Science 31, 1611–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farquhar, C.D. & Richards, R. A. (1984). Isotopic composition of plant carbon correlates with water-use efficiency of wheat genotypes. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 11, 539–552.Google Scholar
Farquhar, G. D., O'Leary, M. H. & Berry, J. A. (1982). On the relationship between carbon isotope discrimination and the intercellular carbon dioxide concentration in leaves. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 9, 121–137.Google Scholar
Farquhar, G. D., Ehleringer, J. R. & Hubick, K. T. (1989). Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 40, 503–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, K. J. & Horner, T. (1955). Comparison of actual and predicted gains in barley selection experiments. Agronomy Journal 41, 186–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee (1987). Genstat 5 Reference Manual. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gripping, B. (1956). Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 9, 463–493.Google Scholar
Hall, A. E., Mutters, R. G., Hubick, K. T. & Farquhar, G. D. (1990). Genotypic differences in carbon isotope discrimination by cowpea under wet and dry field conditions. Crop Science 30, 300–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A. E., Mutters, R. G. & Farquhar, G. D. (1992). Genotypic and drought-induced differences in carbon isotope discrimination and gas exchange of cowpea Crop Science 32, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanway, J. J. & Johnson, J. W. (1985). Potassium nutrition of soybeans. In Potassium in Agriculture (Ed. Munson, R. D.), pp. 753–764. Madison: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Hardacre, A. K., Nicholson, H. F. & Boyce, M. L. P. (1984). A portable photometer for the measurement of chlorophyll in intact leaves. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 12, 357–362.Google Scholar
Hubick, K. T., Farquhar, G. D. & Shorter, R. (1986). Correlation between water-use efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination in diverse peanut (Arachis) germplasm. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 13, 803–816.Google Scholar
Hubick, K. T., Shorter, R. & Farquhar, G. D. (1988). Heritability and genotype × environment interactions of carbon isotope discrimination and transpiration efficiency in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 15, 799–813.Google Scholar
Ismail, A. M. & Hall, A. E. (1992). Correlation between water-use efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination in diverse cowpea genotypes and isogenic lines. Crop Science 32, 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludlow, M. M. & Muchow, R. C. (1990). A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in waterlimited environments. Advances in Agronomy 43, 107–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mook, W. G., Koopmans, M., Carter, A. F. & Veeling, C. D. (1983). Seasonal, latitudinal, and secular variations in the abundance and isotopic ratios of atmospheric carbon dioxide. I. Results from land stations. Journal of Geophysical Research 88, 10915–10933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nienhuis, J. & Singh, S. P. (1988). Genetics of seed yield and its components in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) of Middle-American origin. II. Genetic variance, heritability and expected response from selection. Plant Breeding 101, 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salinas, J. G. & Garcia, R. (1985). Melodos para el Andlisis de Suelos Acidos y Plantas Forrajeras. Cali, Colombia: CIAT.Google Scholar
Sas Institute (1985). SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Scully, B. T., Wallace, D. H. & Viands, D. R. (1991). Heritability and correlation of biomass, growth rates, harvest index, and phenology to the yield of common beans. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 116, 127–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S. P., Lepiz, R., Gutierrez, J. A., Urrea, C., Molina, A. & Teran, H. (1990). Yield testing of early generation populations of common bean. Crop Science 30, 874–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. D. & Kinman, M. L. (1965). The use of parentoffspring regression as an estimator of heritability. Crop Science 5, 595–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, J. W. & Izquierdo, J. (1991). Physiology of yield potential and stress tolerance. In Common Beans: Research for Crop Improvement (Eds Schoonhoven, A. van & Voysest, O.), pp. 287–382. Wallingford: CAB International and Cali, Colombia: CIAT.Google Scholar
White, J. W., Castillo, J. A. & Ehleringer, J. (1990) Associations between productivity, root growth and carbon isotope discrimination in Phaseolus vulgaris under water deficit. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 17, 189–198.Google Scholar
White, J. W., Singh, S. P., Pino, C., Rios, B., , M.J. & Buddenhagen, I. (1992). Effects of seed size and photo- of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) under semi-arid period response on crop growth and yield of common rainfed conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambean. Field Crops Research 28, 295–307.Google Scholar
White, J. W., Ochoa, M. R., Ibarra, P. F., & Singh, S. P. (1994). Inheritance of seed yield, maturity and seed weight of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) under semi-arid rainfed conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 122, 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar