Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Research Article
 

Participatory Varietal Selection of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Wolaita, Ethiopia



Alemayehu Balcha and Rahel Tigabu
 
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit Linkedin StumbleUpon E-mail
ABSTRACT

Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is an important grain legume in Ethiopia. Its yield is low partly because of low yield potential and low adoption of existing varieties. An experiment was conducted in Wolaita, Ethiopia, to identify farmers’ varietal selection criteria and to determine the relationship among grain yield and yield components using fourteen common bean genotypes grown at randomized complete block design with three replications. Grain yield ranged from 183 (genotype Awash-Melka) to 343 g m–2 (genotype Ibbado), 100-seed weight from 16 (genotype Awash-1) to 51 g (genotype Ibbado), pods/plant from 7.87 (genotype Tatu) to 13.73 (genotype SARI-1) and seeds/pod from 3.53 (genotypes Ibbado and ETAW-01-L-3-15A) to 5.93 (genotype Tabor). The correlation of grain yield with 100-seed weight (r = 0.72, p<0.01) and grain filling period (r = 0.68, p<0.01) was positive whereas its correlation with that of pods/plant (r = -0.59, p<0.05) and days to flowering (r = -0.71, p<0.01) was negative. The 100-seed weight was positively correlated with grain filling period (r = 0.54, p<0.05) and negatively correlated with that of pods/plant (r = -0.73, p<0.01), seeds/pod (r = -0.90, p<0.01) and days to flowering (r = -0.74, p<0.01). Farmers mostly preferred genotypes which combined high yield, early flowering and maturity, large and red or red-speckled seeds and fast cooking time. Thus, genotypes Ibbado, Remeda and Tatu would be used to improve adoption and varietal diversity.

Services
Related Articles in ASCI
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

 
  How to cite this article:

Alemayehu Balcha and Rahel Tigabu, 2015. Participatory Varietal Selection of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Wolaita, Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Crop Science, 7: 295-300.

DOI: 10.3923/ajcs.2015.295.300

URL: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=ajcs.2015.295.300
 
Received: August 11, 2015; Accepted: September 29, 2015; Published: October 08, 2015



NTRODUCTION

Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is an important grain legume in Ethiopia occupying about 366, 877 ha of land (19.69% of the total crop area allocated to pulses) and producing about 463,008 t (16.83% of the total pulses production) (CSA., 2013). However, its yield is low partly because of low yield potential as well as low adoption of the existing varieties. The lack or low adoption of new varieties may be because farmers have limited access to those varieties (Witcombe et al., 1996; Courtois et al., 2001), their poor adaptation to specific environments (Courtois et al., 2001) or their failure to fulfill the post-harvest quality requirements of farmers (Joshi and Witcombe, 1996).

Varietal adoption may be increased with the integration of farmers’ participation in selection process and in setting of selection criteria in breeding programs which are usually lacking in formal breeding approaches. Participatory varietal selection is the farmers’ practice of making their choices among the finished and nearly finished breeding materials during on-farm trials or demonstrations (Witcombe and Joshi, 1996). This helps to fit varieties to farmers’ local environmental conditions (Sthapit et al., 1996), reduces the time involved in releasing new varieties (Assefa et al., 2005), increases the adoption and dissemination of the new varieties (Bellon and Reeves, 2002), helps better understanding of farmers’ criteria for variety selection (Sperling et al., 2001) and enhances varietal diversity (Sperling et al., 2001; Joshi and Witcombe, 2002). Participatory varietal selection approach has been used in many crops such as rice (Joshi and Witcombe, 1996, 2002), barley (Ceccarelli et al., 2001), maize (Mulatu and Zelleke, 2002; Tadesse et al., 2014), common bean (Assefa et al., 2005) and sorghum (Nkongolo et al., 2008). The present experiment was conducted to identifying farmers’ varietal selection criteria and to determine the relationship among grain yield and yield components of common bean genotypes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This experiment was conducted on-farm at Waraza Lasho village, 8 km from Wolaita Sodo (6o51’36"N and 37°45’41"E), Ethiopia, at 1961 m above sea level, during 2014 main cropping season. Wolaita Sodo receives average annual rainfall of 1390 mm with the monthly average maximum and minimum temperatures of 25.4 and 14.7°C, respectively. During the experiment duration, May-August, 2014, the monthly average rainfall was 200 mm and the monthly average maximum and minimum temperatures were 23.6 and 15.1oC, respectively. The soil of the experimental site at the depth of 0-30 cm is clay loam (sand 32%, clay 32%, silt 36%) and has pH 6.25, organic carbon 0.98%, P7.4 ppm (Olsen), total N 0.10% and exchangeable Ca, Mg and K of 14.20, 7.80 and 1.56 cmol kg–1 soil, respectively.

Fourteen common bean genotypes (12 released and two advanced lines) obtained from Hawassa Agricultural Research Centre, Hawassa, Ethiopia, were planted in randomized complete block design with three replications on May 12, 2014. The common bean genotypes were planted in four rows with 2 m long separated by 40 cm, with 10 cm between plants. The distance between plots was 80 cm and that between replications was 1.2 m. The 27 kg ha–1 N and 69 kg ha–1 P2O5 were applied in the form of diammonium phosphate at the time of planting. Weeds were controlled with frequent hand weeding throughout the experiment.

Visual evaluation of genotypes was conducted at flowering and maturity stages using 8-10 farmers (host and neighbors) based on the farmers’ knowledge on common bean and their interest in evaluating the experiment. The scores for the visual evaluation were 1-4 (1= poor, 2 = good, 3 = very good, 4 = excellent) for each of the selection criteria. The ranking procedure was explained to participating farmers and the final ranking was done on consensus where differences were resolved through discussion (De Boef and Thijssen, 2007).

Days to flowering and maturity, 100-seed weight (g), pods/plant (average of five random plants at maturity), seeds/pod (average for ten random pods) and grain yield (g m–2) were recorded using the two central rows. These data were analyzed using Genstat software (VSN International, 2012).

RESULTS

The effect of genotype was significant for days to flowering and maturity, grain filling period, pods/plant, seeds/pod, grain yield (g m–2) and 100-seed weight (g). Grain yield ranged from 183 (genotype Awash-Melka) to 342 g m–2 (genotype Ibbado), pods/plant from 7.87 (genotype Tatu) to 13.73 (genotype SARI-1) and 100-seed weight from 16 (genotype Awash-1) to 51 g (genotype Ibbado). There was also considerable variation among genotypes for seeds/pod, days to flowering and maturity and grain filling period (Table 1).

Table 1: Mean squares and mean values for seven grain yield and yield components of fourteen common bean genotypes grown during 2014 main cropping season
Image for - Participatory Varietal Selection of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Wolaita, Ethiopia
1Genotypes Awash-1 to Waju are released varieties, ETAW-01-L-1-25A and ETAW-01-L-3-15A are advanced lines, 2Numbers in the parenthesis are degree of freedom, GY: Grain yield, SW: 100-seed weight, DTF: Days to flowering, DTM: Days to maturity, GFP: Grain filling period, *’**Significant at p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively, ns: Not significant

Table 2: Simple correlation coefficients among seven grain yield and yield components of fourteen common bean genotypes grown during 2014 main cropping season
Image for - Participatory Varietal Selection of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Wolaita, Ethiopia
*, **Significant at p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively, ns: Not significant

The correlation of grain yield with 100-seed weight (r = 0.72, p<0.01) and grain filling period (r = 0.68, p<0.01) was positive whereas its correlation with that of pods/plant (r = -0.59, p<0.05) and days to flowering (r = -0.71, p<0.01) was negative. The 100-seed weight was also positively correlated with grain filling period (r = 0.54, p<0.05) and negatively correlated with that of pods/plant (r = -0.73, p<0.01), seeds/pod (r = -0.90, p<0.01) and days to flowering (r = -0.74, p<0.01) (Table 2).

The mean scores for seven farmers’ selection criteria ranged from 1.71 (genotypes Awash-1 and Awash-Melka) to 3.86 (genotype Remeda). The highest average scores (3.71) were also obtained for genotypes Ibbado and Tatu. The highest scores (4) for early flowering and maturity were obtained for genotypes Ibbado, Omo-95, Remeda and Tatu. The late flowering (1) and maturity (2) scores and that of late maturity score (1) were obtained for genotypes Awash-1 and Awash-Melka and genotype Waju, respectively. The highest scores (4) for pod and grain yield loads were obtained for genotypes Hawassa-Dume, Omo-95, Red-Wolaita and Remeda. The highest scores (4) for seed size were obtained for genotypes Ibbado and Remeda and the lowest score (1) for genotype Awash-1. Genotypes with either white (Awash-1, Awash-Melka, Waju, ETAW-01-L-1-25A) or creamy (genotype Tabor) seeds were given the lowest score (1) and those with red speckled (genotypes Ibbado and Tatu) seeds were given the highest score (4).

Table 3: Farmers’ scores and ranks of fourteen common bean genotypes using seven selection criteria
Image for - Participatory Varietal Selection of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Wolaita, Ethiopia
1Genotypes Awash-1 to Waju are released varieties, ETAW-01-L-1-25A and ETAW-01-L-3-15A are advanced lines, DTF: Days to flowering, DTM: Days to maturity, PL: Pod load, GYL: Grain yield load, scores: 1: Poor, 2: Good, 3: Very good, 4: Excellent

Genotypes Hawassa-Dume, Ibbado, Remeda and Tatu are said to be fast cooking (scores of 4), whereas Awash-Melka and Tabor are long cooking types (Table 3).

DISCUSSION

As to the present experiment, the existence of genotypic variation for grain yield and yield components has been reported in previous studies in common bean (Atuahene-Amankwa and Mechaels, 1997; Fageria et al., 2010; Balcha, 2010, 2014). This suggests the possibility of selection to improve grain yield in the materials studied. On the other hand, the positive correlation of grain yield with 100-seed weight (r = 0.72, p<0.01) and grain filling period (r = 0.68, p<0.01) would suggest the possibility of increasing grain yield by increasing the later traits. However, the progress in selection will be slow and complicated because of negative correlation of 100-seed weight with pods/plant (r = -0.73, p<0.01) and seeds/pod (r = -0.90, p<0.01) and that of pods/plant with grain filling period (r = -0.68, p<0.01). The negative correlation between seeds/pod and seed weight (Balcha, 2014) and positive correlation between the later and grain yield (Fageria et al., 2010; Balcha, 2014) have also been reported in previous studies in common bean.

Besides grain yield and fast cooking time, farmers most preferred large and red or red-speckled seeds which are expected to give high market values. The importance of seed size and cooking time for common bean (Assefa et al., 2005) and maize (Tadesse et al., 2014), seed size for faba bean (Mulualem et al., 2012) and seed color for barley (Ceccarelli et al., 2001), wheat (Workineh et al., 2014), maize (Mulatu and Zelleke, 2002; Tadesse et al., 2014), common bean (Assefa et al., 2005) and sorghum (Muui et al., 2013) have also been reported in previous studies as being farmers important selection criteria.

In present experiment, farmers preferred early flowering and maturity because it gives them early food security for the family in the season. Earliness has also been considered as the most important selection criterion of farmers particularly in drought prone areas. This has been reported for several crops such as maize (Mulatu and Zelleke, 2002; Tadesse et al., 2014), common bean (Assefa et al., 2005), faba bean (Mulualem et al., 2012), sorghum (Muui et al., 2013) and barley (Ceccarelli et al., 2001). Farmers mostly preferred genotypes which combined high yield, early flowering and maturity, large and red or red-speckled seeds and fast cooking time. Thus, genotypes Ibbado, Remeda and Tatu would be used to improve adoption and varietal diversity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This experiment (SCM/002/06) was conducted by the financial support provided by Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia.

REFERENCES

  1. Assefa, T., G. Abebe, C. Fininsa, B.Tesso and A.R.M. Al-Tawaha, 2005. Participatory bean breeding with women and small holder farmers in eastern Ethiopia. World J. Agric. Sci., 1: 28-35.
    Direct Link  |  


  2. Atuahene-Amankwa, G. and T.E. Michaels, 1997. Genetic variances, heritabilities and genetic correlations of grain yield, harvest index and yield components for common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in sole crop and in maize/bean intercrop. Can. J. Plant Sci., 77: 533-538.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  3. Balcha, A., 2010. Genetic variation for grain yield and water absorption in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Afr. J. Food Sci. Technol., 1: 128-131.
    Direct Link  |  


  4. Balcha, A., 2014. Genetic variation for grain yield of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in sole and maize/bean intercropping systems. Asian J. Crop Sci., 6: 158-164.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  5. Ceccarelli, S., S. Grando, E. Bailey, A. Amri and M. El-Felah et al., 2001. Farmer participation in barley breeding in Syria, Morocco and Tunisia. Euphytica, 122: 521-536.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  6. Courtois, B., B. Bartholome, D. Chaudhary, G. McLaren and C.H. Misra et al., 2001. Comparing farmers and breeders rankings in varietal selection for low-input environments: A case study of rainfed rice in eastern India. Euphytica, 122: 537-550.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  7. CSA., 2013. Agricultural sample survey 2012/2013 (2005 E.C.), Volume I: Report on area and production of major crops (private peasant holdings, meher season). Statistical Bulletin No. 532, Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, May 2013.


  8. De Boef, W.S. and M.H. Thijssen, 2007. Participatory Tools Working with Crops, Varieties and Seeds: A Guide for Professionals Applying Participatory Approaches in Agrobiodiversity Management, Crop Improvement and Seed Sector Development. Wageningen International, Wageningen, The Netherlands, ISBN: 9789070785161, Pages: 83


  9. Fageria, N.K., V.C. Baligar, A. Moreira and T.A. Portes, 2010. Dry bean genotypes evaluation for growth, yield components and phosphorus use efficiency. J. Plant Nutr., 33: 2167-2181.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  10. VSN International, 2012. Genstat for Windows. 15th Edn., VSN International Ltd., UK


  11. Joshi, A. and J.R. Witcombe, 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement. II. Participatory varietal selection, a case study in India. Exp. Agric., 32: 461-477.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  12. Joshi, K.D. and J.R. Witcombe, 2002. Participatory varietal selection in rice in Nepal in favourable agricultural environments-A comparison of two methods assessed by varietal adoption. Euphytica, 127: 445-458.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  13. Mulatu, E. and H. Zelleke, 2002. Farmers' highland maize (Zea mays L.) selection criteria: Implication for maize breeding for the Hararghe highlands of eastern Ethiopia. Euphytica, 127: 11-30.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  14. Mulualem, T., T. Dessalegn and Y. Dessalegn, 2012. Participatory varietal selection of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) for yield and yield components in Dabat district, Ethiopia. Wudpecker J. Agric. Res., 7: 270-274.
    Direct Link  |  


  15. Muui, C.W., R.M. Muasya and D.T. Kirubi, 2013. Participatory identification and evaluation of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) landraces from lower eastern Kenya. Int. Res. J. Agric. Sci. Soil Sci., 3: 283-290.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  16. Nkongolo, K.K., K.K.L. Chinthu, M. Malusi and Z. Vokhiwa, 2008. Participatory variety selection and characterization of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) elite accessions from Malawian gene pool using farmer and breeder knowledge. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 3: 273-283.
    Direct Link  |  


  17. Sperling, L., J.A. Ashby, M.E. Smith, E. Weltzien and S. McGuire, 2001. A framework for analyzing participatory plant breeding approaches and results. Euphytica, 122: 439-450.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  18. Sthapit, B.R., K.D. Joshi and J.R. Witcombe, 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement. III. Participatory plant breeding, a case study for rice in Nepal. Exp. Agric., 32: 479-496.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  19. Tadesse, D., Z.G. Medhin and A. Ayalew, 2014. Participatory on farm evaluation of improved maize varieties in Chilga district of north western Ethiopia. Int. J. Agric. For., 4: 402-407.
    Direct Link  |  


  20. Witcombe, J. and A. Joshi, 1996. Farmer Participatory Approaches for Varietal Breeding and Selection and Linkages to the Formal Seed Sector. In: Participatory Plant Breeding, Eyzaguirre, P. and M. Iwanaga (Eds.). IPGRI, Rome, Italy, pp: 57-65


  21. Witcombe, J.R., A. Joshi, K.D. Joshi and B.R. Sthapit, 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement. I. Varietal selection and breeding methods and their impact on biodiversity. Exp. Agric., 32: 445-460.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  22. Workineh, A., B. Abate and D. Kefalle, 2014. Participatory evaluation and selection of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties: Implication for sustainable community based seed production and farmer level varietal portfolio managements at southern Ethiopia. World J. Agric. Res., 2: 315-320.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  23. Bellon, M.R. and J. Reeves, 2002. Quantitative Analysis of Data from Participatory Methods in Plant Breeding. CIMMYT., Mexico, DF


©  2022 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved