Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:47:39.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

YIELDS AND QUALITY OF PHASEOLUS BEAN CULTIVARS UNDER FARMERS’ CONDITIONS IN EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2013

HENNING HØGH-JENSEN ,
DONWELL KAMALONGO ,
AMOS NGWIRA  and
FIDELIS A. MYAKA
HENNING HØGH-JENSEN*
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
DONWELL KAMALONGO
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
AMOS NGWIRA
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
FIDELIS A. MYAKA
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
*
†Corresponding author. Email: hehje@food.dtu.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is a dominant grain legume in eastern and southern Africa, where it constitutes a major source of protein and microminerals in peoples’ diet. The current studies aimed at determining how initially promising genotypes of bean responded in terms of yield and grain element composition under farmers’ cropping conditions. It was found that variations between genotypes in the proportions of elements in the grain dry matter across a wide range of conditions could be linear with an additional 20% iron (Fe) or zinc (Zn) for some genotypes. However, this linearity was only identifiable under relatively favourable conditions. Further, a favourable season could enhance the proportion of Fe in the grains of the same genotypes by up to 20%, whereas Zn did not respond. Fe and Zn correlated only to some degree with P (r2 > 0.35). It is concluded that the supply of elements in the diet may best be secured by selecting for high-yielding cultivars as the amounts of phosphorus (P), Fe and Zn in the grains correlated strongly (r2 > 0.93) to the dry matter grain yield.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 178 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Araújo, A. P. and Teixeira, M. G. (2003). Nitrogen and phosphorus harvest indices of common bean cultivars: Implications for yield quantity and quality. Plant and Soil 257:425–433.Google Scholar
Beebe, S., Gonzales, A. V. and Rengifo, J. (2000). Research on trace minerals in common bean. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 21:387–391.Google Scholar
Blair, M. W., Astudillo, C., Grusak, M. A., Graham, R. and Beebe, S. E. (2009). Inheritance of seed iron and zinc concentrations in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Molecular Breeding 23:197–207.Google Scholar
Blair, M. W., Gonzáles, L. F., Kimani, P. M. and Butare, L. (2010). Genetic diversity, inter-gene pool introgression and nutritional quality of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from Central Africa. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 121:237–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cakmak, I., Pfeiffer, W. F. and McClafferty, B. (2010). Biofortification of durum wheat with zinc and iron. Cereal Chemistry 87:10–20.Google Scholar
Chirwa, R. M., Aggarwal, V. D., Phiri, M. A. R. and Mwenda, A. R. E. (2007). Experiences in implementing the Bean Seed Strategy in Malawi. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 29:43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, M. S., Zhao, F. J., Feirweather-Tait, S. J., Poulton, P. R., Dumham, S. and McGrath, S. P. (2008). Evidence of decreasing mineral density in wheat grain over the last 160 years. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology 22:315–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genc, Y., Humphries, J. M., Lyons, G. H. and Graham, R. D. (2005). Review: Exploiting genotypic variation in plant nutrient accumulation to alleviate micronutrient deficiency in populations. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology 18:319–324.Google Scholar
Graham, P. H., Rosas, J. C., Estevez de Jensen, C., Peralta, E., Tlusty, B., Acosta-Gallegos, J. and Arraes Pereira, P. A. (2003). Addressing edaphic constraints to bean production: The bean/cowpea CRSP project in perspective. Field Crops Research 82:179–192.Google Scholar
Hacisalihoglu, G., Ozturk, L., Cakmak, I., Welch, R. M. and Kochian, L. (2004). Genotypic variation in common bean in response to zinc deficiency in calcareous soil. Plant and Soil 259:71–83.Google Scholar
Hildebrand, P. E. and Russell, J. T. (1996). Adaptability Analysis. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Hillocks, R. J., Madata, C. S., Chirwa, R., Minja, E. M. and Msolla, S. (2006). Phaseolus bean improvement in Tanzania, 1959–2005. Euphytica 150:215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Høgh-Jensen, H., Myaka, F. A., Kamalongo, D., Rasmussen, J. and Ngwira, A. (2006). Effect of environment on multi-element grain composition of pigeonpea cultivars under farmers’ conditions. Plant and Soil 285:81–96.Google Scholar
Husted, S., Mikkelsen, B. F., Jensen, J. and Nielsen, N. E. (2004). Elemental fingerprint analysis of barley (Hordum vulgare) using inductive coupled plasma mass spectrometry, isotope-ratio mass spectrometry, and multivariate statistics. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 378:171–182.Google Scholar
Khoshgoftarmanesh, A. H., Schulin, R., Chaney, R. L., Daneshbakhsh, B. and Afyuni, M. (2010). Micronutrient-efficient genotypes for crop yield and nutritional quality in sustainable agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30:83–107.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2012). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Tryphone, G. M. and Nchimbi-Msolla, S. (2010). Diversity of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes in iron and zinc content under screenhouse conditions. African Journal of Agricultural Research 5:738–747.Google Scholar
Welch, R. M. and Graham, R. D. (2002). Breeding crops for enhanced micronutrient content. Plant and Soil 245:205–214.Google Scholar