determination of superior pinto bean (phaseolus vulgarisl ...cultivated species, such as p. vulgaris...

Introduction

The genus Phaseolus includes several wild andcultivated species, such as P. vulgaris L. and P.coccineous L., known as the common and runner bean,respectively (Bliss, 1980). The common bean(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is a species of American originwhose 2 principal areas of domestication are South

America and Middle America (Gepts and Bliss, 1986).The possible routes that the beans took in post-Colombian times from the Americas to Europe, Africa,and Asia have been analyzed by various authors (Geptsand Bliss, 1988; Gil and Ron, 1992). Approximately200 years ago it was first grown in Turkey(Bayraktar, 1981; Günay, 1992).

Turk J Agric For31 (2007) 335-347© TÜB‹TAK

335

Determination of Superior Pinto Bean(Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. Pinto) Genotypes by Selection under the

Ecological Conditions of Samsun Province, Turkey

Ahmet BALKAYA*, Ahmet ERGÜN

Ondokuz May›s University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Horticulture, 55139 Kurupelit, Samsun - TURKEY

Received: 04.12.2006

Abstract: Species belonging to the family Leguminosae are widely grown in Turkey. Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. Pinto) isa traditional crop in Turkey and farmers grow local varieties that they select and maintain. Pinto bean is an important food in Samsunprovince, Turkey. Its crop is consumed as fresh pods, and fresh pod seed or dry seeds. This study was conducted in order to selectvaluable genetic resources of the pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. Pinto) under the ecological conditions of Samsun in 2003and 2004. In the first year, 44 pinto bean populations were collected and evaluated according to their morphological, earliness, andyield traits. The results showed that populations were significantly different in pod length, width, longitudinal section shape, shellthickness, color, suture string, and curvature. From the observations, 10 genotypes were evaluated as superior using a weight-basedranking method for fresh pod and fresh grain pod in the first year of the study. In the second year, from these selected genotypes4 genotypes (55ÇA07, 55ÇA15, 55TE15, and 55TE20) for fresh pods and 5 genotypes (55ÇA01, 55ÇA05, 55ÇA15, 55ÇA24, and55TE15) for fresh grain pods were determined as promising genotypes. At the end of this research, selected genotypes will be usedin the development of new promising pinto bean varieties.

Key Words: Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris var. Pinto), genotype, selection, Turkey

Samsun ‹li Ekolojik Koflullar›nda Barbunya Fasulyesi (Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. Pinto)Populasyonlar›ndan Üstün Genotiplerin Seleksiyonla Belirlenmesi

Özet: Türkiye’de Leguminosae familyas›na ait türler, yayg›n olarak yetifltirilmektedir. Barbunya fasulyesi, ülkemizde üreticilertaraf›ndan yerel çeflitlerden tohumlar› seçilerek yetifltirilen bir üründür. Samsun ‹linde; barbunya fasulyesi taze, iç bakla ve kurubaklagil olarak tüketilir. Bu çal›flma, 2003-2004 y›llar›nda Samsun ‹li ekolojik koflullar›ndan toplanan 44 barbunya fasulye (Phaseolusvulgaris L. var. Pinto) populasyonun oluflturdu¤u genetik kaynak içerisinden de¤erli olan genotiplerin seçilmesi amac›ylayürütülmüfltür. Morfolojik özellikler, erkencilik ve verimlilik yönünden incelenen genotipler aras›nda, bakla uzunlu¤u, geniflli¤i, flekli,et kal›nl›¤›, rengi, k›lç›kl›l›k durumu ve k›vr›kl›l›¤› bak›m›ndan belirgin farkl›l›klar oldu¤u saptanm›flt›r. Tart›l› derecelendirmeyönteminin kullan›ld›¤› bu de¤erlendirmenin sonucunda gerek taze gerekse de iç bakla (tane) özellikleri yönünden 10 üstün tipbelirlenmifltir. Ertesi y›l ise bunlardan; taze barbunya için 4 genotip (55ÇA07, 55ÇA15, 55TE15 ve 55TE20) ve taze iç bakla için de5 genotip (55ÇA01, 55ÇA05, 55ÇA15, 55ÇA24 ve 55TE15) ümitvar genotipler seçilmifltir. Yap›lan bu çal›flma ile seçilen genotiplerinyak›n gelecekte yeni barbunya fasulye çeflitlerinin gelifltirilmesinde kaynak olarak yararlan›labilecekleri anlafl›lm›flt›r.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Barbunya fasulyesi (Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. Pinto), genotip, seleksiyon, Türkiye

* Correspondence to: [email protected]

The common bean is a crop of considerableimportance worldwide, both as a vegetable and as a grainlegume. Its use as a vegetable in developed countriesincludes fresh pod (French bean) and fresh grain; indeveloping countries fresh pod is used (Escribano et al.,1997). Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. Pinto) hasan important role in human nutrition and it is also adelicious vegetable. It can be consumed in different ways,such as fresh pod, fresh grain, and grain legume. Inaddition, it can be consumed as canned and dried pod.The total production of legume vegetable species inTurkey is 709,000 t (D‹E, 2005). Snap bean (Phaseolusvulgaris L.) is the most important cultivated legume inTurkey; its production has the largest share (76.9%),whereas pinto bean has a share of 7.3% with 52,000 tannually (D‹E, 2005). Samsun province has a big share(17.3%) of snap bean production with 94,019 t and ithas an important share (9.7%) in pinto bean productionwith 5061 t, followed by Bursa (6109 t). In Turkey,common bean landraces still represent important geneticresources used directly by farmers on a small scale(Balkaya et al., 1999).

Turkish farmers have grown common bean landracesdue to their ability to adapt to local environmentalconditions and suitability to the preference of localconsumers. Consequently, common bean populationsshow an appreciable diversity in response to the range ofecological and human influences. The old bean landraceshave progressively been replaced with improved newcultivars, which ensure higher yields and incomes, andmeet the requirements of processors and consumers.

Landraces have played a significant role in thecommon bean breeding programs of Turkey. Cultivarbreeding studies have been conducted on the commonbean populations in various part of Turkey since 1960.Türkes (1989) identified 4 cultivar candidate beanpopulations through the pedigree selection method,according to earliness, pod shape and quality, and yieldtraits, for the Trakya region. Bafl et al. (1991)characterized and bred new cultivars from green beanpopulations in the Aegean region. In 1984 and 1985,360 populations were collected. Some cultivars exhibitedoptimal performance in the autumn period. Among them,Zondra 86 was registered as a green bean cultivar andDemre type-1 was found to be suitable for theMediterranean region. Line 16 of this genetic source was

determined to be superior for yield and pod qualitycomponents. This cultivar candidate was recommendedfor growing in greenhouses during the spring andautumn (Özçelik, 1999). Another study was carried outwith bean seeds having the characteristics of thepopulation that was collected from different areas of ‹çelprovince in the Mediterranean region during 1990-1996.Lines 14 of the climbing Ayfle population and dwarf line21 were the most favorable lines for yield and qualitycomponents. These lines were recommended as cultivarcandidates for the early spring (Tunar and Kesici, 1998).A study conducted by Balkaya and Yanmaz (1999)between 1995 and 1998 was undertaken to determinesome plant characteristics, such as plant height, pod traits(length, color, cross section, stringless, curvature, yield),and earliness, and to select suitable green bean cultivarsfor fresh consumption from the populations of the BlackSea region. In the first year of the study, 166 climbing-(Phaseolus vulgaris var. communis) and 34 dwarf-type(Phaseolus vulgaris var. nanus) populations werecollected; then 31 climbing and 9 dwarf lines wereselected by the pedigree method in the second year. Atthe end of that study, 7 promising climbing lines and 1dwarf line were determined as cultivar candidates.

Pinto bean and its varieties are still traditionallygrown by farmers, an activity commonly associated withgrowing other crops, such as maize, for mass selection inSamsun province (Balkaya and Odabafl, 2004). For thisreason, a high degree of diversity is still maintainedwithin this species; therefore, it is possible to collectvaluable bean germplasms in this region. Pinto beanlandraces usually have local names. They have certainparticular properties (such as earliness, lateness, and seedcoat color), a reputation for adaptation to local climaticconditions and cultural practices, and resistance ortolerance against pests and diseases (Balkaya et al.,1999). There has been no comprehensive program forcollecting or characterizing these pinto bean geneticresources in this region and no reported study results(Yanmaz, 2002).

In this study, we report on some characteristics oflocal populations of pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris var.Pinto) collected in Samsun province. We aimed to selectthe most promising pinto bean genotypes for use inbreeding efforts.

Determination of Superior Pinto Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. Pinto) Genotypes by Selection under the Ecological Conditions of SamsunProvince, Turkey

336

Materials and Methods

The study included 44 local populations of pinto beancollected in Samsun province, both during harvest andafter harvest, between July 2002 and October 2002(Table 1). The genetic material consisted of landraces ornative populations maintained by farmers for

generations, which were representative of the differentpinto bean types growing in Samsun. Collected materialwas classified as climbing (39 genotypes) and semi-climbing (5 genotypes), and their seeds were maintainedat 4 °C at the Faculty of Agriculture, Ondokuz MayısUniversity, Samsun, Turkey.

A. BALKAYA, A. ERGÜN

337

Table 1. Accession number, collection location, and local names of the studied pinto beangenotypes.

Code Accession number Collection site/village Vernacular name

G1 55 ÇA 01 Çarflamba/Çalt› Tombul barbunyaG2 55 ÇA 02 Çarflamba/Merkez BarbunyaG3 55 ÇA 03 Çarflamba/Bafracal› BarbunG4 55 ÇA 04 Çarflamba/Bafracal› BarbunG5 55 ÇA 05 Çarflamba/Bafracal› Turfluluk barbunG6 55 ÇA 06 Çarflamba/Karamustafal› TurflulukG7 55 ÇA 07 Çarflamba/Bafracal› TurflulukG8 55 ÇA 08 Çarflamba/Bafracal› TurflulukG9 55 ÇA 09 Çarflamba/Merkez BarbunyaG10 55 ÇA 10 Çarflamba/Merkez TurflulukG11 55 ÇA 11 Çarflamba/Merkez BarbunyaG12 55 ÇA 12 Çarflamba/Merkez BarbunyaG13 55 ÇA 13 Çarflamba/Merkez TurflulukG14 55 ÇA 14 Çarflamba/Merkez Etli fasulyeG15 55 ÇA 15 Çarflamba/Merkez BarbunyaG16 55 ÇA 16 Çarflamba/Merkez BarbunyaG17 55 ÇA 17 Çarflamba/Merkez BarbunyaG18 55 ÇA 18 Çarflamba/Merkez BarbunyaG19 55 ÇA 19 Çarflamba/Kemer BarbunyaG20 55 ÇA 20 Çarflamba/Merkez Yumuk fasulyeG21 55 ÇA 21 Çarflamba/Merkez BarbunyaG22 55 ÇA 22 Çarflamba/Çelikli BarbunyaG23 55 ÇA 23 Çarflamba/Bafracal› TurflulukG24 55 ÇA 24 Çarflamba/Saraçl› TurflulukG25 55 ÇA 30 Çarflamba/Kum Yar›m çangalG26 55 ÇA 40 Çarflamba/Çalt› Oturak barbunG27 55 ÇA 41 Çarflamba/Çalt› Kocakar› otura¤›G28 55 ÇA 42 Çarflamba/Melik Erkenci oturakG29 55 TE 01 Terme/Hüseyin Mescit BarbunyaG30 55 TE 02 Terme/Uzun Gazi BarbunyaG31 55 TE 03 Terme/Geçmifl TurflulukG32 55 TE 04 Terme/Geçmifl fiekerG33 55 TE 05 Terme/Geçmifl TurflulukG34 55 TE 06 Terme/Geçmifl TurflulukG35 55 TE 07 Terme/Hüseyin Mescit BarbunyaG36 55 TE 08 Terme/Sar› Hasan BarbunyaG37 55 TE 09 Terme/Hüseyin Mescit BarbunyaG38 55 TE 10 Terme/Hüseyin Mescit BarbunyaG39 55 TE 11 Terme/Hüseyin Mescit BarbunyaG40 55 TE 12 Terme/Sar› Hasan BarbunyaG41 55 TE 13 Terme/Geçmifl TurflulukG42 55 TE 14 Terme/Geçmifl BarbunyaG43 55 TE 15 Terme/Geçmifl BarbunyaG44 55 TE 20 Terme/Uzun Gazi Yar›m Çangal

Evaluations were carried out in Samsun province. Thisprovince is situated in the Black Sea region of Turkey andhas a humid climate, with annual relative humidity of72.0% and rainfall of about 708.0 mm (DM‹GM, 2005).

The seeds of pinto bean genotypes were sown on 6May 2003 and 10 May 2004. Distance between rows forclimbing genotypes was 0.80 m and plants were spaced0.40 m apart in the row. Semi-climbing genotypes weresown at the distances 0.50 × 0.30 m. The soil of theexperiment area was sandy loam with a pH of 6.8.Fertilization and weed control using standard culturalpractices were performed regularly. The plants for eachgenotype were harvested in different periods as fresh podand fresh grain pod. Similarly, each genotype washarvested at the varietal-specific period, based on theInternational Union for the Protection of New Varieties ofPlants (UPOV) descriptors mentioned below. Harvestingbegan in the middle of July and lasted until the end ofSeptember each year. The characters were selectedaccording to the UPOV’s Phaseolus vulgaris L. descriptorslist (TTSM, 1998) for every stage.

Pod characteristic analyses were carried out on 10fruits harvested from 120 plants (60 plants for fresh podconsumption and 60 plants for fresh grain consumption).The examined fresh pod characters were: length, width,shape of the longitudinal section, shell thickness, color,suture string, curvature, and wall fiber. In addition, podlength, width, fleck color, curvature, and shape of thefresh grain pods were recorded for each genotype, andearliness and yield components were determined. Thefresh pod number per plant and total pod weight perplant were calculated for each population during theharvest. Mean pod weights were determined by dividingthe total pod weight by the pod number. Number ofseeds per pod, fresh grain pod number, total fresh grainweight (g), fresh seed weight (g), and fresh grain weight(g) values were recorded for all the genotypes.

Statistical analyses were performed with MicrosoftExcel 7.0 software and obtained data were evaluated bya weight-based ranking method (Balkaya and Yanmaz,1999; Balkaya and Yanmaz, 2005). Class values of theselection criteria, class scores (CS), and relative scores(RS) were assigned (Tables 2 and 3). The total score oftypes was calculated by multiplying the class scores (CS)by the relative scores (RS). Based on the results of theselection, 10 genotypes were selected for both fresh podand fresh grain pod to use the second year.

Results

In all, 44 pinto bean accessions were evaluated in thisstudy. All the results showed a large variation among thepopulations. Some fresh pod characteristics of thecollected pinto bean genotypes are given in Table 4.

Pod dimensions showed a range of 12.3-24.0 cm inlength, 12.1-19.9 mm in width, and 5.0-7.7 mm in shellthickness (Table 4). Pinto bean genotypes were separatedinto 6 groups based on pod shape: long round, long flat,medium round, medium flat, short round, and short flat(Table 2). In this study 21 genotypes had pod shapeclassified as long flat (47.7%) (Table 4).

Pod color of the collected pinto bean genotypes wasgreen (81.8%) and dark green (13.6%), except for thegenotypes G1 and G12 (Table 4). Similarly, pod suturestring widely influences consumer appeal. Consumerspreferred stringless pods for fresh consumption (Balkayaand Odabafl, 2004). All pinto bean genotypes werestringless, except for genotype G17. In the majority ofgenotypes (47.7%), pod curvature was classified asstraight, whereas 4 genotypes were recurving (Table 4).

Flower color of the pinto bean genotypes was white(40.9%), lilac (31.8%), and purple (27.3%) (Table 5).For the pinto bean genotypes the time from seed sowingto harvest varied between 57 and 136 days. GenotypeG26 was harvested at 57 days and classed as early. Onthe other hand, genotype G11 was harvested at 136 daysand classed as late (Table 5). Pod number per plant variedfrom 2.6 to 30.8. G25 had the most pods per plant(30.8), followed by G4 (28.5) and G3 (20.8). Fresh podyield per plant ranged from 35.3 g to 339.0 g. Thehighest fresh pod yield was obtained from G43 (339.0g), while G36 had the lowest (35.3 g). Average podweight of the genotypes varied from 6.5 g (G28) to 22.6g (G43) (Table 5).

In terms of the pod length and width of the freshgrain pods, there was a big difference among thegenotypes. The genotypes showed a range of 12.0-22.1cm for pod length and 11.8-23.0 mm for pod width(Table 6).

As is well known, pod fleck color greatly influencesconsumer desirability. Balkaya and Odabafl (2004) statedthat consumers preferred red fleck pods for fresh grainconsumption in the research area. Similarly, this studyfound that most genotypes (72.7%) were red-flecked(Table 6).


338


339

Table 2. Characteristic scores based on the evaluation of the fresh pods of the pinto bean genotypes.

Characteristics Class value Class scores (CS) Relative scores (RS)

Long-round (> 18 cm) 2Long-flat (> 18 cm) 5

Pod shape Medium-round (14-18 cm) 2Medium-flat (14-18 cm) 4 15Short-round (< 14 cm) 1Short-flat (< 14 cm) 1

Crispness Present 5 5Absent 1Stringy 1 15

Pod suture string Few strings 3Stringless 5Light green 1 10

Pod color Green 3Dark green 5Straight 5 15

Pod curvature Slightly curved 4Curved 3Recurving 1Rough 1 5

Pod wall fiber Slightly rough 3Smooth 5Very flat 1 5

Pod cross section Medium 3Large 5Many (442.2-342.0 ) 5

Fresh pod yield (g)/plant Medium (341.9-241.6) 3 20Few (241.5-141.2 ) 1Early (51-69) 5

Earliness (days) Medium (70-85) 3 10Late (> 85) 1

Table 3. Scores of the characteristics based on the evaluation of fresh grain pods of the pinto bean genotypes.

Characteristics Class value Class scores (CS) Relative scores (RS)

Long-round (> 18 cm) 2Long-flat (> 18 cm) 5

Pod shape Medium-round (14-18 cm) 2Medium-flat (14-18 cm) 4 20Short-round (< 14 cm) 1Short-flat (< 14 cm) 1

Red 5 10Pod color Purple 3

Black 1

Straight 5 15Pod curvature Slightly curved 4

Curved 3Recurving 1

Many (7.4-6.8) 5 10Number of seeds in pods Medium (6.7-6.1) 3(unit) Few (6.0-5.4 ) 1

Many (339.0-272.9) 5Fresh grain pod (g)/plant Medium (272.8-206.7) 3 30

Few (206.6-140.7) 1

Early (80-110) 5Earliness (days) Medium (110-130) 3 15

Late (> 130) 1


340

Table 4. Some fresh pod characteristics of pinto bean genotypes from Samsun province, Turkey.

Pod Pod Shape of Pod shell Pod PodCode length width longitudinal thickness Pod color suture curvature Pod wall

(cm) (mm) section (mm) string fiber

G1 15.6 ± 1.2 14.9 ± 0.5 Medium-flat 6.7 ± 0.4 Light green Stringless Straight Rough

G2 21.4 ± 0.4 19.0 ± 0.7 Long-flat 5.4 ± 0.4 Green Stringless Straight Slightly rough

G3 12.3 ± 0.7 14.4 ± 0.5 Short-flat 6.4 ± 0.5 Green Stringless Straight Slightly rough


G5 21.5 ± 0.5 16.6 ± 0.7 Medium-flat 5.7 ± 0.6 Green Stringless Slightly curved Slightly rough

G6 24.0 ± 0.7 15.2 ± 0.8 Long-flat 6.2 ± 0.4 Green Stringless Slightly curved Rough

G7 22.1 ± 1.4 18.2 ± 1.5 Long-flat 6.6 ± 0.6 Green Stringless Slightly curved Slightly rough



G10 16.4 ± 0.8 13.1 ± 1.2 Medium- round 6.1 ± 0.3 Dark green Stringless Straight Rough

G11 18.6 ± 1.7 18.5 ± 1.2 Medium-flat 6.1 ± 0.3 Green Stringless Straight Rough

G12 19.0 ± 1.8 15.9 ± 0.7 Long-flat 6.1 ± 0.6 Light green Stringless Straight Slightly rough

G13 17.4 ± 0.8 13.2 ± 1.0 Medium-flat 6.2 ± 1.0 Green Stringless Slightly curved Rough


G15 19.4 ± 1.8 17.9 ± 1.6 Long-flat 7.1 ± 0.6 Dark green Stringless Slightly curved Slightly rough

G16 19.2 ± 0.7 17.2 ± 0.7 Long-flat 6.2 ± 0.4 Green Stringless Curved Rough

G17 20.1 ± 0.9 15.9 ± 1.0 Long-flat 6.6 ± 0.4 Dark green Stringy Straight Rough

G18 17.3 ± 0.5 16.7 ± 0.6 Medium-round 7.0 ± 0.6 Dark green Stringless Slightly curved Rough

G19 19.0 ± 0.8 13.5 ± 0.5 Long-flat 6.9 ± 0.7 Green Stringless Recurving Slightly rough

G20 18.0 ± 0.8 14.3 ± 0.5 Medium-flat 7.2 ± 0.9 Green Stringless Curved Slightly rough

G21 21.9 ± 0.2 15.9 ± 0.7 Long-flat 5.5 ± 0.2 Dark green Stringless Straight Slightly rough

G22 15.9 ± 0.9 13.6 ± 1.6 Medium-flat 6.8 ± 0.6 Green Stringless Straight Rough

G23 15.3 ± 1.0 13.1 ± 0.5 Medium-flat 6.5 ± 0.6 Green Stringless Straight Slightly rough


G25 17.0 ± 1.2 14.5 ± 0.9 Short-flat 6.2 ± 0.8 Green Stringless Curved Slightly rough


G27 14.6 ± 0.8 16.0 ± 0.7 Short-flat 7.2 ± 0.4 Green Stringless Slightly curved Slightly rough

G28 16.0 ± 1.0 13.1 ± 0.6 Medium-flat 7.2 ± 0.5 Green Stringless Recurving Rough

G29 18.8 ± 0.6 13.5 ± 0.3 Medium-flat 6.4 ± 0.4 Green Stringless Curved Rough

G30 19.1 ± 0.6 13.2 ± 0.5 Long-flat 6.3 ± 0.4 Green Stringless Recurving Rough


G32 17.5 ± 0.4 14.2 ± 0.7 Medium-flat 5.2 ± 0.4 Green Stringless Straight Smooth


G34 20.8 ± 0.7 18.2 ± 0.6 Long-flat 6.6 ± 0.8 Green Stringless Curved Rough



G37 17.0 ± 1.4 12.9 ± 0.5 Medium-flat 6.9 ± 0.7 Green Stringless Slightly curved Rough

G38 19.3 ± 1.6 14.5 ± 0.7 Long-flat 5.7 ± 0.5 Dark green Stringless Straight Slightly rough

G39 22.8 ± 1.1 15.6 ± 0.8 Long-flat 5.5 ± 0.5 Green Stringless Straight Rough


G41 21.8 ± 0.6 13.2 ± 1.2 Long-flat 7.7 ± 0.5 Green Stringless Recurving Rough

G42 14.7 ± 0.5 12.1 ± 0.6 Short-flat 5.2 ± 0.5 Green Stringless Straight Rough


G44 18.7 ± 0.9 13.8 ± 0.9 Short-flat 7.0 ± 0.6 Green Stringless Slightly curved Smooth


341

Table 5. Some plant and yield characteristics of pinto bean (as fresh pod) genotypes from Samsun, Turkey.

Code Growth habit Flower Earliness Pod number Fresh pod yield Average podcolor (day) (unit) (g)/plant weight (g)

G1 Climbing White 96 13.0 ± 1.8 163.3 ± 25.7 11.7

G2 Climbing Lilac 115 12.6 ± 2.2 211.7 ± 24.7 16.7

G3 Climbing White 65 20.8 ± 10.1 151.4 ± 20.2 6.8

G4 Climbing White 66 28.5 ± 9.7 210.7 ± 30.7 7.1

G5 Climbing Lilac 125 11.4 ± 5.6 214.4 ± 20.4 14.8

G6 Climbing White 112 12.3 ± 1.1 136.6 ± 19.3 12.2

G7 Climbing White 102 12.0 ± 2.8 188.5 ± 25.8 11.5

G8 Climbing Lilac 113 10.3 ± 0.8 127.4 ± 10.4 12.0

G9 Climbing Purple 114 11.6 ± 1.0 177.4 ± 15.7 14.7

G10 Climbing Lilac 114 14.5 ± 1.7 238.6 ± 23.3 15.8

G11 Climbing White 136 7.0 ± 1.0 101.8 ± 13.6 14.5



G14 Climbing White 130 10.8 ± 0.9 166.8 ± 18.1 15.8

G15 Climbing White 130 11.6 ± 1.8 232.4 ± 25.5 20.6

G16 Climbing Lilac 80 14.0 ± 3.1 222.1 ± 21.2 16.9



G19 Climbing Lilac 88 10.4 ± 1.4 86.0 ± 4.5 8.9

G20 Climbing White 102 10.3 ± 3.3 107.7 ± 18.0 9.5


G22 Climbing Lilac 117 4.6 ± 0.5 56. 0 ± 9.7 12.2

G23 Climbing White 111 11.0 ± 1.2 138.3 ± 15.7 12.1

G24 Climbing White 119 12.0 ± 0.8 212.0 ± 14.5 17.3

G25 Semi-climbing Lilac 75 30.8 ± 12.7 218.5 ± 24.4 7.8

G26 Semi-climbing Purple 57 14.9 ± 1.7 163.6 ± 19.8 9.8



G29 Climbing White 104 8.3 ± 0.8 83.6 ± 8.6 11.0

G30 Climbing White 100 10.8 ± 4.2 140.0 ± 26.5 11.6

G31 Climbing Lilac 127 5.5 ± 0.5 54.0 ± 9.6 11.7

G32 Climbing White 127 9.7 ± 0.9 140.7 ± 23.7 13.5

G33 Climbing White 114 12.0 ± 3.2 94.6 ± 22.6 11.5



G36 Climbing White 122 4.8 ± 1.1 35.3 ± 3.7 11.9

G37 Climbing Lilac 117 5.5 ± 0.5 67.8 ± 10.0 12.9

G38 Climbing Lilac 106 10.0 ± 1.1 123.6 ± 4.6 11.5

G39 Climbing Lilac 104 12.0 ± 1.4 180.4 ± 23.3 15.1


G41 Climbing White 124 2.6 ± 0.8 47.5 ± 7.5 19.0

G42 Climbing Lilac 120 5.4 ± 0.5 51.0 ± 5.2 9.4

G43 Climbing White 115 14.4 ± 2.6 339.0 ± 11.9 22.6



342

Table 6. Some fresh grain pod characteristics of pinto bean genotypes from Samsun province, Turkey.

Pod Pod Pod Pod Seeds Fresh seed weight/ EarlinessCode length width fleck curvature number per fresh grain pod (day)

(cm) (mm) color pod weight (%)

G1 19.8 ± 1.8 12.6 ± 0.9 Red Straight 5.6 ± 1.3 42.0 111

G2 22.0 ± 1.6 19.0 ± 1.0 Red Straight 7.4 ± 1.8 44.0 135

G3 12.0 ± 0.3 14.0 ± 0.8 Red Straight 4.7 ± 1.0 44.0 80

G4 12.6 ± 0.7 13.6 ± 1.0 Red Straight 4.1 ± 2.0 45.0 80

G5 21.5 ± 1.5 20.4 ± 1.5 Red Slightly curved 7.0 ± 1.9 35.0 135

G6 21.0 ± 2.1 14.4 ± 0.7 Black Straight 5.6 ± 1.7 42.7 131

G7 20.8 ± 1.6 19.9 ± 1.9 Purple Slightly curved 6.8 ± 1.6 36.0 111


G9 17.1 ± 0.3 13.5 ± 0.8 Red Curved 5.5 ± 2.1 38.0 128

G10 18.6 ± 1.3 14.2 ± 0.9 Black Slightly curved 6.0 ± 1.2 35.0 135

G11 20.5 ± 0.7 19.1 ± 0.5 Red Straight 6.3 ± 0.5 35.0 142

G12 21.1 ± 0.5 13.0 ± 0.3 Purple Straight 5.7 ± 1.0 35.0 141

G13 16.7 ± 0.5 13.0 ± 1.6 Red Straight 5.1 ± 0.9 35.0 111

G14 18.0 ± 1.4 17.2 ± 0.4 Red Straight 5.3 ± 1.0 38.0 141



G17 18.9 ± 0.5 13.0 ± 0.2 Red Straight 6.1 ± 1.6 35.0 132



G20 16.8 ± 1.0 12.7 ± 0.6 Red Curved 7.4 ± 2.0 37.0 114

G21 18.4 ± 1.1 14.6 ± 0.3 Purple Curved 5.9 ± 2.4 38.0 109

G22 16.4 ± 0.5 13.1 ± 0.4 Red Straight 5.6 ± 2.6 41.0 127

G23 15.6 ± 1.3 11.8 ± 0.4 Red Straight 6.0 ± 3.0 39.0 120

G24 22.1 ± 1.5 18.6 ± 0.5 Red Straight 6.8 ± 2.5 40.0 132



G27 13.7 ± 1.3 14.7 ± 1.2 Red Curved 3.8 ± 0.9 40.0 71

G28 16.0 ± 0.6 13.3 ± 0.8 Red Curved 4.3 ± 1.1 40.0 73

G29 17.4 ± 1.1 14.2 ± 0.5 Red Curved 5.6 ± 1.3 37.0 122

G30 19.6 ± 0.8 13.3 ± 0.5 Black Recurving 6.5 ± 1.6 39.0 111


G32 18.0 ± 1.4 14.2 ± 0.8 Red Straight 6.0 ± 1.4 40.0 140

G33 18.9 ± 0.5 15.2 ± 0.6 Black Straight 6.8 ± 2.1 37.0 128

G34 17.8 ± 0.6 18.6 ± 0.7 Purple Curved 5.7 ± 2.3 36.0 137



G37 16.1 ± 1.9 13.1 ± 1.3 Red Straight 5.7 ± 1.1 40.0 127




G41 21.3 ± 0.4 13.2 ± 0.3 Purple Curved 6.2 ± 1.6 39.0 134

G42 14.0 ± 0.7 11.9 ± 0.4 Red Straight 5.0 ± 0.9 33.0 130

G43 20.5 ± 1.4 19.0 ± 1.2 Red Straight 6.7 ± 0.8 40.0 128


The seeds per pod ranged from 3.8 to 7.4. G2 andG20 had the most seeds per pod (7.4) (Table 6). G4 hadthe highest ratio of fresh seed weight to fresh grainweight. The time from seed sowing to harvest variedbetween 71 and 143 days for fresh grain consumptionpinto bean genotypes (Table 6)

Some fresh pod characteristics of the selected beanlines are given in Table 7. Pod length varied from 12.6cm to 22.4 cm (Table 7) and the highest value of thisparameter was recorded in G7, G43, and G2, while G3had the lowest value (Table 7). For pod width, thegenotypes ranged from 13.5 to 19.8 mm. G43 had thegreatest pod width (19.8 mm), followed by G15 (19.6mm) (Table 7). Based on the research results, 4 pintobean genotypes formed a distinctive class of long and flatpods. On the other hand, measurement of pod shellthickness showed that it varied between 5.0 and 7.3 mmin the selected genotypes (Table 7).

Green tones were the dominant pod colors, except forgenotype G15 (Table 7). In this study, all genotypes hadstringless pods. Pod curvature of genotype G25 wascurved, and the other genotypes were straight and/orslightly curved (Table 7).

For all selected genotypes the number of days fromsowing to harvest varied between 57 (G27) and 128(G15). Moreover, G27 (57 day), and G3 and G4 (65days) were earlier for fresh pod consumption (Table 8).On the other hand, the number of pods per plant had animportant agronomical effect on fresh pod yield, and

showed significant differences (10.0-40.4 units) betweenthe genotypes (Table 8). The fresh pod weight per plantranged from 141.4 g to 442.2 g. Average pod weightwas influenced by selected types. The highest average podweight was obtained from G15 (18.1 g), while G3 hadthe lowest (5.6 g) (Table 8).

Pod length of fresh grain pods ranged from 16.5 cmto 22.6 cm. G24 (22.6 cm), G2 (22.2 cm), and G5 (22.1cm) pods fixed the longest (Table 9). Pod width valuesvaried between 23.3 mm (G15) and 12.9 mm (G1)(Table 9). The selected types with the widest pods wereG15 (23.3 mm), G5 (20.0 mm), G43 (19.3 mm), and G2(19.2 mm).

All selected types were red-flecked, with the exceptionof G10 (black) and G35 (purple) (Table 9). The podcurvature trait within the selected materials was recordedas straight and slightly curved (Table 9).

In the selected types the number of days from seedsowing to harvest varied between 82 (G25) and 141(G15) (Table 9). Seed number per pod had an importanteffect on fresh grain pod yield, and high seed numbersper pod are demanded by commercial growers. Seeds perpod ranged from 5.6 to 7.4. The best genotypes for thistrait were G2 (7.4) and G5 (7.2) (Table 9). Doubtless, ahigh fresh seed weight/fresh grain pod weight ratio is adesirable trait (Balkaya and Odabafl, 2004). The highestfresh seed weight/fresh grain weight ratio was obtainedwith G2 (44.0%) (Table 9). The most productive pintobean genotypes, in terms of pod number per plant, were


343

Table 7. Some fresh pod characteristics of pinto bean genotypes from Samsun province, Turkey.

Pod Pod Shape of Pod shell Pod PodCode length width longitudinal thickness Pod color suture curvature Pod wall

(cm) (mm) section (mm) string fiber





G7 22.4 ± 1.3 19.0 ± 1.3 Long-flat 6.8 ± 0.7 Green Stringless Slightly curved Slightly rough

G15 20.0 ± 1.2 19.6 ± 1.4 Long-flat 7.3 ± 0.4 Dark green Stringless Slightly curved Slightly rough

G25 17.5 ± 0.9 14.0 ± 0.7 Short-flat 6.5 ± 0.6 Green Stringless Curved Slightly rough

G27 14.8 ± 0.6 16.3 ± 0.5 Short-flat 7.3 ± 0.3 Green Stringless Slightly curved Slightly rough


G44 19.2 ± 0.7 14.0 ± 0.8 Short-flat 7.1 ± 0.9 Green Stringless Slightly curved Smooth

G25 (33.9), G10 (14.5), and G43 (14.4), respectively(Figure 1). The highest total fresh grain pod yield wasobtained with G43 (339.0 g/plant) (Figure 2). Averagefresh grain pod weight was highest in G43 (22.6 g)(Figure 2).

Discussion

Plant genetic resources are important for progress inplant breeding, genetics, and molecular biology. Plantgenetic resources must be characterized according tomorphological and agronomic traits so as to be of use toplant breeders (Martins et al., 2006). Consequently,

there is a need for collecting, characterizing, andevaluating remnant local populations before theydisappear; however, there is a considerable informationgap concerning collection, classification, and evaluation ofgenetic resources in Turkey (Balkaya and Yanmaz, 2001).Populations and landraces are never static and are alwayschanging. For that reason there is no such thing as varietymaintenance. There are some environmental factors(climate, weather, soil, etc.) and genetic factors (such asmutations, genetic drift due to population size) that arecontinually changing the varieties (McCormack, 2004).

Usage possibilities and application methodology ofpinto bean genetic resources under Samsun ecological


344

Table 8. Some plant and yield characteristics of pinto bean (as fresh pod) genotypes from Samsun province, Turkey.

Code Growth habit Flower Earliness Pod number Fresh pod yield Average podcolor (day) (unit) (g)/plant weight (g)

G2 Climbing Lilac 112 13.0 ± 2.7 212.8 ± 6.3 14.6

G3 Climbing White 65 37.0 ± 5.3 208.0 ± 23.8 5.6

G4 Climbing White 65 40.4 ± 6.9 229.0 ± 8.7 5.7

G5 Climbing Lilac 122 10.0 ± 1.2 174.6 ± 9.7 16.4

G7 Climbing White 98 13.5 ± 1.7 243.3 ± 19.7 12.9

G15 Climbing White 128 12.8 ± 2.1 220.3 ± 5.9 18.1



G43 Climbing White 115 19.8 ± 4.7 265.8 ± 6.9 13.5


Table 9. Some fresh grain pod characteristics of pinto bean genotypes from Samsun province, Turkey.

Pod Pod Pod Pod Seeds Fresh seed weight/ EarlinessCode length width fleck curvature number per fresh grain pod (day)

(cm) (mm) color pod weight (%)

G1 20.7 ± 1.6 12.9 ± 0.6 Red Straight 5.9 ± 1.4 42.5 106

G2 22.2 ± 0.7 19.2 ± 0.8 Red Straight 7.4 ± 1.6 44.0 132


G10 18.3 ± 0.9 14.6 ± 0.8 Black Slightly curved 5.6 ± 0.8 32.0 128


G24 22.6 ± 1.3 18.4 ± 0.6 Red Straight 6.8 ± 2.5 40.0 128


G32 18.2 ± 1.0 14.0 ± 0.6 Red Straight 6.2 ± 1.8 42.0 137


G43 21.1 ± 1.6 19.3 ± 1.0 Red Straight 7.1 ± 0.7 43.0 125

conditions were shown. From the 44 tested genotypesfor fresh pod and fresh grain pod growing, 10germplasms were selected according to selection criteria,and weight-based ranking results are given in Tables 10and 11. When total points were taken into consideration,the point range of the selected types varied from 310 to375 for fresh pods. The most promising types wereconsidered to be those with 340 or more points. Basedon this criterion, 4 types (bold type in Table 10) wereselected. On the other hand, it was found that the pointrange of the selected types varied from 220 to 470 for

fresh grain pods. Based on this criterion, 5 types (boldtype in Table 11) were selected. Selections will be used inthe future for pinto bean variety breeding.

For fresh pod production, G7, G15, and G43 might bepreferred by consumers because they have the straight,flat, and large stringless pods, but G44, with short pods,was more productive. G1, G5, G15, and G43 were foundto be promising genotypes of fresh grain pod forimprovement and breeding activities. Yield componentvalues might be affected strongly by insufficient culturalpractices and, especially, environmental factors. It is


345

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

G1 G2 G5 G10 G15 G24 G25 G32 G35 G43

Fresh grain pods/plant Average pod weight (g)

Figure 1. Fresh grain pods/plant and average pod weight (g) of the selected pinto bean genotypes from Samsunprovince, Turkey.

Table 10. Weight-based ranking of pinto bean genotypes for fresh pod consumption from Samsun province, Turkey (types selectedwith 340 or more points are shown in bold).

Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod FreshCode shape Crispness suture color curvature wall cross pod Earliness Total

string fiber section yield

G2 75 25 75 30 75 15 5 20 10 330

G3 15 25 75 30 75 15 25 20 50 330

G4 15 25 75 30 75 15 15 20 50 320

G5 60 25 75 30 60 15 15 20 10 310

G7 75 25 75 30 60 15 25 60 10 375

G15 75 25 75 50 60 15 25 20 10 355

G25 15 25 75 30 45 15 25 60 30 320

G27 15 25 75 30 60 15 25 20 50 315

G43 75 25 75 30 75 15 5 60 10 370

G44 15 25 75 30 60 15 25 100 30 375

essential to grow these types at different locations for thedetermination of the genotype (G) × environment (E)(Balkaya and Yanmaz, 2005). For this reason, fieldexperiments continued at the different locations(minimum 3 places) for 2 years and improved lines wereregistered according to the results. Earliness of podmaturity is an important characteristic, because it helpsavoid or reduce the incidence of some stress factors. Atthe same time, it permits farmers to bring beans to

market when they can obtain high prices. It may alsoextend vegetation periods and provide the opportunity togrow a catch crop or double crop in temperateenvironments or zones (Rodino et al., 2001). For freshconsumption the selected genotypes G27, G3, and G4maturated early (> 70 days); otherwise, G5 was classifiedas early for fresh grain pod. These genotypes wouldrequire further evaluation in replicated trials incontrasting environments in order to identify the superiorgenotypes.

In conclusion, the selected types can be used for bothfresh pod and fresh grain pod production in futurebreeding work. The other remaining genetic materialsalso had some valuable traits. For this reason, all thecollected populations will be preserved as geneticresources at the Turkey Seed Gene Bank.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Ondokuz May›s UniversityResearch Foundation (Z-405) for its financial support.


346

Table 11. Weight-based ranking of pinto bean genotypes for fresh grain pod from Samsun province, Turkey (typesselected with 340 or more points are shown in bold).

Code Pod shape Pod color Pod Number of Fresh grain Earliness Totalcurvature seed in pods pod yield

G1 100 50 75 10 30 75 340

G2 100 50 75 50 30 15 320

G5 100 50 60 50 90 45 395

G10 80 10 60 10 90 45 295

G15 80 50 60 30 150 15 385

G24 100 50 75 50 90 45 410

G25 20 50 60 10 90 75 305

G32 20 50 75 30 30 15 220

G35 80 30 60 10 30 45 255

G43 100 50 75 50 150 45 470

0

50100150200250300350400

G1 G2 G5 G10 G15 G24 G25 G32 G35 G43

Total fresh grain weight (g)

Figure 2. Total pod weight (g) of the selected pinto bean genotypes(fresh grain per pod) from Samsun province, Turkey.

ReferencesBalkaya, A. and R. Yanmaz. 1999. Karadeniz Bölgesi taze fasulye

populasyonlar›ndan teksel seleksiyon yoluyla gelifltirilen çeflitadaylar›. Türkiye III. Ulusal Bahçe Bitkileri Kongresi. Sayfa: 504-508, Ankara.

Balkaya, A., R. Yanmaz, H. Bozo¤lu and A. Gülümser. 1999. Samsunilinin taze fasulye yetifltiricili¤i yönünden durumunun belirlenmesi.Karadeniz Bölgesi Tar›m Sempozyumu. Bildiriler. Cilt:1, Sayfa:51-62, Samsun.


347

Balkaya, A. and R. Yanmaz. 2001. Bitki genetik kaynaklar›n›n muhafazaimkanlar› ve tohum gen bankalar›n›n çal›flma sistemleri. EkolojiÇevre Dergisi. 39: 25-30.

Balkaya, A. and S. Odabafl. 2004. Samsun koflullar›nda ekim zaman›n›nbarbunya fasulye (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) yetifltiricili¤indeerkencilik, verim ve baz› kalite özellikleri üzerine olan etkilerininbelirlenmesi. Bahçe Dergisi. 33: 7-15.

Balkaya, A. and R. Yanmaz. 2005. Promising kale (Brassica oleracea L.var. acephala ) populations from Black Sea region in Turkey. NewZealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science. 33: 1-7.

Bafl, T., J. Koludar and Z. Caymazer. 1991. Fasulye Araflt›rmalar›Projesi (Ege Dilimi). 1991 Y›l› Geliflme Raporu. Menemen - ‹zmir.

Bayraktar, K. 1981. Sebze Yetifltirme. Cilt-III. Sebzelerde TohumÜretimi. Ege Üniv. Ziraat Fak. Yay›nlar› No: 244. 356s. Bornova-‹zmir.

Bliss, F.A. 1980. Common Bean. In: Hybridization of Crop Plants (Eds.W.R. Fehr and H.H. Handley), American Society of Agronomy-Crop Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 273-284.

D‹E, 2005. Tar›msal Yap› ve Üretim. T.C. Baflbakanl›k Devlet ‹statistikEnstitüsü. Yay›n No: 2949. Ankara.

DM‹GM, 2005. Devlet Meteoroloji ‹flleri Genel Müdürlü¤ü. Samsun ‹lMüdürlü¤ü Kay›tlar›.

Escribano, M.R., M. Santalla and A.M. Ron. 1997. Genetic diversity inpod and seed quality traits of common bean populations fromnorthwestern Spain. Euphytica. 93: 71-81.

Gepts, P. and F.A. Bliss. 1986. Phaseolin variability among wild andcultivated common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) from Colombia.Econ. Bot. 40: 469-478.

Gepts, P. and F.A. Bliss. 1988. Dissemination paths of common bean(Phaseolus vulgaris) deduced from phaseolin electrophoreticvariability. II. Europe and Africa. Econ. Bot. 42: 86-104.

Gil, J. and A.M. Ron. 1992. Variation in Phaseolus vulgaris in thenorthwest of the Iberian Peninsula. Plant Breeding. 109: 313-319.

Günay, A. 1992. Özel Sebze Yetifltiricili¤i. Cilt 4. Sayfa: 81-91, Ankara

Martins, S.R., F.J. Vences, L.E. Miera, M.R. Barroso and V. Carnide.2006. RAPD analysis of genetic diversity among and withinPortuguese landraces of common white bean (Phaseolus vulgarisL.). Scientia Horticulturae. 108: 133-142.

McCormack, J. 2004. Bean Seed Production. An Organic SeedProduction Manual for Seed Growers in the Mid-Atlantic andSouthern U.S. (available on-line at: www.savingourseed.org/pdf/BeanSeedProduction)

Özçelik, N. 1999. Örtüalt› yetifltiricili¤ine elveriflli s›r›k taze fasulye çeflit›slah›. Türkiye III. Ulusal Bahçe Bitkileri Kongresi. Sayfa: 902-906, Ankara.

Rodino, A.P., M. Santalla, I. Montero, P.A. Casquero and A.M. De Ron.2001. Diversity of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)germplasm from Portugal. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution.48: 409-417.

TTSM, 1998. Farkl›l›k, Yeknesakl›k ve Durulmuflluk Testleri ‹çin BitkiÖzellik Belgesi. Fasulye.9s. Tar›m ve Köyiflleri Bakanl›¤› TohumlukTescil ve Sertifikasyon Merkezi Müdürlü¤ü, Ankara.

Tunar, M. and S. Kesici. 1998. ‹lkbahar yetifltiricili¤i için s›r›k ve bodurAyfle fasulyelerin teksel seleksiyon yöntemi ile ›slah›. 2. Sebzetar›m› Sempozyumu. Sayfa: 209-212, Tokat.

Türkes, T. 1989. fieker, Boncuk Ayfle, Karaayfle ve Ferasetsizfasulyelerinde seleksiyon ›slah›. Atatürk Bahçe KültürleriAraflt›rma Enstitüsü. 14s. Yalova.

Yanmaz, R. 2002. Türkiye Sebzecilik Bibliyografyas› (1923-1999).Sayfa: 242-253, Ankara.

determination of superior pinto bean (phaseolus vulgarisl ...cultivated species, such as p. vulgaris...

Documents