Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Legume Research, volume 47 issue 5 (may 2024) : 745-750

Principal Component Analysis and Stability of Genotypes in French Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)

B. Rajasekhar Reddy1,*, Maneesh Pandey1, J. Singh1, P.M. Singh1, N. Rai1
1Division of Crop Improvement, ICAR-Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi-221305, Uttar Pradesh, India.

  • Submitted16-12-2020|

  • Accepted24-04-2021|

  • First Online 12-05-2021|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-4569

Cite article:- Reddy Rajasekhar B., Pandey Maneesh, Singh J., Singh P.M., Rai N. (2024). Principal Component Analysis and Stability of Genotypes in French Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) . Legume Research. 47(5): 745-750. doi: 10.18805/LR-4569.

ABSTRACT

Background: Principal component analysis and Finlay-Wilkinson stability analysis were carried out at research farm of ICAR-Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi to identify diverse french bean genotypes for green pod yield and suitable genotypes for stable yield and yield related parameters.

Methods: All the 24 genotypes were laid out in randomized block design with two replications during winter, 2017 and 2018. Principal component analysis and stability analysis was done to identify the diverse and stable genotypes.

Result: Eight principal components were observed and the maximum variability was concentrated in the first three principal components PC1, PC2 and PC3 which contributed to 68.61% variance. Cluster analysis from principal component scores formed three clusters with a maximum of seventeen genotypes in cluster I followed by six genotypes in cluster II and one genotype in cluster III. High heritability was observed for 10 pod weight, number of pods per cluster and number of seeds per pod and moderate heritability was observed for yield per plant. Finlay-Wilkinson stability analysis identified the  stable  genotypes viz., FMGCV 1378, FMGCV 0958, Arka Suvidha, Valentino, Banoa and VRFBB-14-2 for green pod yield per plant, Cartagenta for pod length (cm) and Paulista, Slender Pack, Arka Suvidha, Valentino, FMGCV 0958, Banoa, FORC 6V 1136, VRFBB-14-1, VRFBB-14-2 for number of pods per plant.

INTRODUCTION

French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is an important legume vegetable crop grown for its nutrient and protein rich pods (Carvalho et al., 2012). French beans used for their tender pods and green beans as vegetable are known as snap beans whereas, those used for shelled dry beans are called as “Rajmash”. Common bean or french bean originated in Central and South America (Kaplan, 1981). French bean is a highly self-pollinated diploid legume with chromosome number of 2n=2x=22. It is the legume which is devoid of root nodules and cannot fix nitrogen. The tender pods of french beans have great demand in urban areas of India. They are grown commercially as well as in kitchen gardens. Worldwide green beans are cultivated in 1.5 million hectares with a production of 24 million tonnes, out of which India contributes 0.67 million tonnes of production (FAOSTAT, 2017). The major bean producing states in India were Gujarat, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Bihar and Telangana. The states with highest bean productivity were Tamil Nadu, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand (Saxena et al., 2017).
        
About 150 species of Phaseolus spp. are  present worldwide (Arenas et al., 2013) and among them four important species  viz., Phaseolus vulgaris L. (common bean), Phaseolus coccineus L. (runner bean), Phaseolus acutifolius Gray (tepary bean) and Phaseolus lunatus L. (camber bean) were domesticated by man. The closest wild relative of the domesticated Phaseolus vulgaris L. is Phaseolus aborigineus Burk. (Berglund-Briicher and Briicher, 1976). Genetic diversity is one of the prerequisites in crop improvement. Selection of improved genotypes depends on the amount of genetic variability available within the existing genotypes. Regional diversity is one of the characteristics of the common bean. Once the diversity is established in french bean, its strong tendency to self-pollination in a cleistogamous way preserves this diversity (Kaplan, 1981). 
               
Genetic diversity is the total variability among different genotypes with respect to genetic makeup of the genotypes related to single species or between species. Principal component analysis (PCA) is a multivariate statistical technique that converts a lot of correlated factors to few components (Ziegel, 2002). Hanci and Cebeci (2018) evaluated the morphological variability of six pea genotypes through PCA and found that 11 of the 15 principal components had eigen value >1. Finlay-Wilkinson stability analysis, GGE biplot analysis, AMMI etc., helps to identify the stable genotypes for various characters. In common bean, yield and stability had been studied in seven genotypes by GGE biplot analysis that identified Lida and Mirsini genotypes as most desirable for yield and stability (Kargiotidou et al., 2019). Basavaraja et al., (2020) studied the diversity of 63 common bean through cluster analysis which are confined to two clusters and found significant positive correlation of seed yield with number of branches per plant, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and hundred seed weight (g).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experimental material consists of 24 bush type french bean genotypes (Table 1) that include cultivars developed both at National and International level. All the genotypes were laid out in a randomized block design with two replications during winter, 2017 and 2018. The study was conducted at the research farm of ICAR-Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi which is located at 25° 10’ N latitude and 82° 52’ E longitude and 128.93 m of mean sea level. Each genotype was grown in a plot size of 4m × 3m. The seeds were sown at a spacing of 60 cm between the rows and 20 cm within the row in the mechanically prepared layout. All the standard package of practices was done agronomically in raising the crop.
 

Table 1: List of french bean genotypes used for present study.


        
The data on eight characters viz., plant height (cm), number of branches per plant, pod length (cm), number of pods per plant, 10 pod weight (g), number of pods per cluster and number of seeds per pod was recorded from 10 random plants in each genotype per replication while the pod yield (kg/plant) was calculated on whole plot basis. The statistical analysis for principal component analysis and cluster analysis was done using SAS version 9.2 and the stability analysis for two environments (seasons) was done using PBSTAT (Suwarno et al., 2008).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The principal component analysis for eight traits revealed eight principal components out of which maximum variability was concentrated in the first three principal components PC1, PC2 and PC3 which contributed to 68.61% variance (Table 2). The remaining five principal components were considered irrelevant as their eigen values were less than unity. The eigen values for the significant principal components were 2.3955 (PC1), 1.7101 (PC2) and 1.3830 (PC3).
        

Table 2: Eigen values, percent variance and cumulative variance of the principal components.


 
The first principal component (PC1) contributed a maximum of 29.94% towards variance which was contributed mainly by pod length (cm) and number of pods per cluster. The second principal component explained 21.38% of variance which was contributed mainly by number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and 10 pod weight (g). The third principal component contributed 17.29% of total variance which was contributed mainly by yield per plant (g) and number of branches per plant. The results are in accordance with the findings of Shama et al., (2019), Alice et al., (2018), Sofi et al., (2014) and Verma et al., (2014) for number of pods per plant, 10 pod weight (g), pod length (cm), number of seeds per pod and yield per plant.
        
The clustering of genotypes into different clusters based on principal component scores and their intercluster distances. At an RMS distance of 79.76 all the 24 genotypes of french bean were grouped into three clusters (Table 3) based on the principal component scores from the standardized data. Cluster I comprised of 17 genotypes, Cluster II had 6 genotypes and Cluster III had only one genotype. Greater intercluster distance was observed between clusters III and II followed by clusters III and I while the least inter cluster distance was observed between clusters I and II. The genotypes from clusters with greater intercluster distance can be utilized as donor parents to obtain better transgressive segregants. The results are in accordance with the findings of Shama et al., (2019) and Alice et al., (2018).
 

Table 3: Clustering of genotypes at RMS (Root mean square distance) of 79.76.


        
Broad sense heritability for various traits is presented in Table 4. High heritability (> 60%) was observed for 10 pod weight (97.09), number of pods per cluster (94.25), number of seeds per pod (60.87). Moderate heritability (31-60%) was observed for pod length (50.61), number of pods per plant (46.10) and yield per plant (42.45) and low heritability (0-30%) was observed for plant height (22.27) and number of branches per plant (0.05). The traits with high heritability viz., 10 pod weight (g), number of pods per cluster, number of seeds per pod can be improved by simple selection. Jhanavi et al., (2018), Singh and Singh (2013), Ahmed and Kamaluddin (2013) reported high heritability for 10 pod weight (g), number of pods per cluster, pod length (cm), yield per plant, plant height (cm), number of primary branches per plant and number of pods per plant.
 

Table 4: Correlation coefficients between the eight traits of french bean.


        
The correlation between various traits under study was presented in Table 4. Pod yield per plant had a significant positive correlation  with number of pods per plant (0.7154), 10 pod weight (0.6482) and number of branches per plant (0.4785) while pod yield per plant had significant negative correlation with number of seeds per pod (-0.4182). Number of branches per plant and number of pods per plant (0.4167) had significant positive correlation whereas, significant negative correlation exists between plant height and number of seeds per pod (-0.4817). Similar findings of positive correlation of yield with number of pods per plant, average pod weight and number of branches per plant were reported by Shama et al., (2019), Verma et al., (2014) and Karasu and Oz (2010).
        
All the twenty four bush type french bean genotypes were significantly different for the characters studied viz., number of branches per plant, pod length (cm), number of pods per plant, 10 pod weight (g), number of seeds per pod, number of pods per cluster and yield per plant (g) whereas, no significant difference was observed for plant height in these bush type genotypes of french bean. Significant genotype × environment interactions were observed for the traits number of  branches per plant, pod length, number of pods per plant and yield per plant (Table 5) while there was no significant G × E interactions observed for 10 pod weight (g), number of seeds per pod, plant height (cm) and number of pods per cluster.
 

Table 5: ANOVA for stability over two years.


        
Finlay-Wilkinson stability analysis was done to identify stable genotypes for various characters. A genotype is considered stable if its response to environment is parallel to the mean response of all genotypes in the trial (Lin et al., 1986). Genotype with bi = 1.0 is considered dynamically stable, if bi value greater than 1.0 it is suitable for more favorable environments and if bi value less than 1.0 the genotype is expected to be suitable for less favorable environments.
        
The mean values and linear regression coefficient (bi) of the different genotypes and various characters presented in Table 6. For the trait number of branches per plant the genotypes that could be considered stable were Contender (1.08), FORC6V 1136 (0.97), FMGCV 1007 (1.30), FORC6V 1137 (1.35) and Rivergaro (0.92).  The genotype Cartagenta (1.81) could be considered stable for pod length (cm) when compared to all other genotypes. The genotypes Paulista (0.99), Slender Pack (0.98), Arka Suvidha (0.89), Valentino (0.88), FMGCV 0958 (1.12), Banoa (0.86), FORC 6V 1136 (1.14), VRFBB-14-1 (1.32) and VRFBB-14-2 (1.45) were considered stable for number of pods per plant. The genotypes FMGCV 1378 (1.28), FMGCV 0958 (1.37), Arka Suvidha (1.47), Valentino (1.02), Banoa (1.14) and VRFBB-14-2 (1.08) were found stable for yield per plant.
        

Table 6: Pooled mean values for different yield and yield related traits along with their regression coefficients (bi).


 
For yield per plant the genotypes FMGCV 1007 (2.34), VRFBB 6 (2.21), VRFBB 7 (2.19), FMGC6V 1379 (2.30) were suitable for cultivation under more favourable environments. FMGCV 1006 (0.12), Cartagenta (0.19), Swarn Priya (0.23), Kashi Rajhans (0.23) and Slender Pack (0.45) were suitable for less favourable environments. The results are in accordance with the findings of Singh et al., (2020), Jain et al., (2018) in rice, Chavan et al., (2009) in groundnut, Singh et al., (2018) and Haydar et al., (2018) in Wheat.

CONCLUSION

Based on the principal component analysis, it was observed that the first three principal components contributed for 68.61% variance. Selection of genotypes from cluster III and cluster II for crossing will help to create new genetic diversity and better transgressive segregants for future use. Due to high heritability, the traits 10 pod weight, number of pods per cluster and number of seeds per pod can be improved by simple selection in early generations. The genotypes FMGCV 1378, FMGCV 0958, Arka Suvidha, Valentino, Banoa and VRFBB-14-2 could be considered stable for yield per plant and were grouped in the same cluster indicating their similar genotypic response.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are highly thankful to Director, ICAR-Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi for providing necessary facilities for carrying out this research work.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

All the authors of this research manuscript declare no conflict of interest with any one regarding this manuscript submission.

REFERENCES


  1. Ahmed, S. and Kamaluddin. (2013). Correlation and path analysis for agro-morphological traits in rajmash beans under Baramulla- Kashmir region. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 8(18): 2027-2032.

  2. Alice, A.K., Pandey, A.K., Singh, S., Chakma, J., Singh, B.K., Thokchom, A. and Chettri, A. (2018). Principal component based agro-morphological performance analysis of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). International Journal of Chemical Studies. 6(6): 1850-1853.

  3. Arenas, O.R., Huato, M.A.D., Tapia, J.A.R., Simon, A.B., Lara, M.H. and Huerta, E.C. (2013). The Nutritional value of Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and its importance for Feeding of Rural communities in Puebla-Mexico. International Research Journal of Biological Sciences. 2(8): 59-65.

  4. Basavaraja, T., Manjunatha, L., Chandora, R., Gurumurthy, S. and Singh, N.P. (2020). Assessment of genetic variability, diversity and trait correlation analysis in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. Legume Research. 44(3): 252-260. DOI: 10.18805/LR-4208.

  5. Berglund-Brficher, O. and H. Briicher. (1976). The South American wild bean (Phaseolus aborigineus Burk.) as ancestor of the common bean. Economic Botany. 30: 257-272.

  6. Carvalho, L.M., Correa, M.M., Pereira, E.J., Nutti, M.R., Carvalho, J.L., Ribeiro, E.M., Freitas, S.C. (2012). Iron and zinc retention in common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) after home cooking. Food and Nutrition Research. 56: 15618-16623. 

  7. Chavan, R.D., Toprope, V.N., Jagtap, P.K. and Aglave, B.N. (2009). Stability analysis in groundnut for pod yield and its component traits. International Journal of Plant Sciences. 4(2): 531-534.

  8. FAOSTAT. (2017). http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/metadata. 

  9. Hanci, F. and Cebeci, E. (2019). Determination of morphological variability of different Pisum genotypes using principal component analysis. Legume Research. 42(2): 162-167.

  10. Haydar, F.M.A., Uddin, M.N., Roy, U.K., Uddin, G.M. and Siddique, A.B. (2018). Stability analysis of yield performance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant Environment Development. 7(2):10-15.

  11. Jain, B.T., Sarial, A.K. and Kaushik, P. (2018). Stability analysis utilizing AMMI model and regression analysis for grain yield of basmati rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes. Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences. 6(3): 522-530.

  12. Jhanavi, D.R., Patil, H.B., Justin, P. Revanappa. Hadimani, H.P., Mulla, S.W.R. and Sarvamangala, C. (2018). Genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance studies in french bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 52(2): 162-166. 

  13. Kaplan L. (1981). What is the origin of the common bean? Economic Botany. 35: 240-254.

  14. Karasu, A. and Oz, M. (2010). A study on coefficient analysis and association between agronomical characters in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science. 16(2): 203-211.

  15. Kargiotidou, A., Papathanasiou, F., Baxevanos, D., Vlachostergios, D.N., Stefanou, S. and Papadopoulos, I. (2019). Yield and stability for agronomic and seed quality traits of common bean genotypes under Mediterranean conditions. Legume Research. 42(3): 308-313. doi: 10.18805/LR-437.

  16. Lin, C.S., Binns, M.R. and Lefkovitch, L.P. (1986). Stability analysis: where do we stand? Crop Science. 26: 894-900.

  17. SAS Institute: SAS version 9.2 System options. Cary, NC, USA, SAS Institute, USA.

  18. Saxena, M., Rathore, R.P.S., Gupta, R.P., Bhargav, H., Thakur, B., Joshi, S., Karale, M., Singh, R. and Gilotra, P. (2017). Horticultural statistics at a glance 2017. Published by Department of Agriculture, co-operation and farmers welfare, GOI.

  19. Shama, R., Jabeen, N. and Sofi, P.A. (2019). Principal component analysis for assessment of variability in phenological and morphological traits in French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L). Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding. 10(4): 1569-1575.

  20. Singh, A. and Singh, D.K. (2013). Genetic variability and character association analysis in french bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Food Legumes. 26(3 and 4): 130-133.

  21. Singh, C., Srivastava, P., Sharma, A., Kumar, O., Chhuneja, P., Sohu, V.S. and Bains, N.S. (2018). Stability analysis for grain yield and some quality traits in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 10 (1): 466-474.

  22. Singh, S.K., Behera, P.P., Singh, D.K., Korada, M., Habde, S.V. and Khaire, A. (2020). Stability analysis of rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes with high grain zinc in five different locations of eastern Uttar Pradesh. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 39(34): 123-135.

  23. Sofi, P.A., Wani, S.A., Zargar, M.Y., Sheikh, F.A., Saba, I. and Shafi, T. (2014). Genetic variability and factor analysis in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) germplasm collection for yield related traits. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding. 5(2): 254-259.

  24. Suwarno, W.S., Sobir, Aswidinnoor, H. and Syukur, M. (2008). PBSTAT: A web-based statistical analysis software for participatory plant breeding. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Mathematics and Statistics, Bogor, pp 852-858.

  25. Verma, V.K., Jha, A.K., Pandey, A., Kumar, A., Choudhury, P., Swer, T.L. (2014). Genetic divergence, path coefficient and cluster analysis of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) genotypes. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 84(8): 925-30. 

  26. Ziegel, E. (2002). Editor’s report on Encyclopedia of Environmetrics. In: Technometrics [Eds: A. El Shaarawi and W. Piegorsch,]. 44(1-4): 408-409.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)