Skip to main content
Log in

Genotypic variability in plant water status of French bean under drought stress

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Seven genotypes of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) were evaluated under semi-controlled conditions at the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Bangladesh to analyze genotypic variability in leaf water status under water stress. The plants were grown under two moisture regimes, viz. 80% field capacity (FC) and 50% FC throughout the growing season. The genotypes showed significant variation in water relation traits. Genotypes BB24 and BB43 maintained higher relative water content (RWC), but lower turgid weight/dry weight ratio (TW/DW) and water uptake capacity (WUC). When drought susceptibility index (DSI) among the genotypes was considered, BB24 was found the most tolerant to drought and BB04 was the most susceptible one. A close positive relationship between leaf TW/DW and DSI under drought was recorded (R 2 = 0.627). Leaf TW/DW was decreased considerably due to water stress by 10% in genotype BB24 followed by BB43 (13%), and both BARI bushbean-2 and BB04 (19%). Stomatal aperture and whole plant transpiration rate were found minimal in the BB24 and BB43 compared to that of BB04 and BARI bushbean-2. Considering these water relation traits, genotypes BB24 and BB43 may be considered as relatively tolerant to tissue dehydration. The study also revealed that the TW/DW, WUC, stomatal aperture, and whole plant transpiration rate was negatively and significantly associated with yield; however, the RWC was positively correlated with yield under water stress conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acosta-Gallegos JA. 1988. Selection of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes with enhanced drought tolerance and biological nitrogen fixation. Ph.D. thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing (Diss Abstr 8824816).

    Google Scholar 

  • Acevedo E, Ceccarelli S. 1989. Role of the physiologist-breeder in a breeding program for drought resistance conditions. In FWG Baker, ed, Drought Resistance in Cereals, CAB International, Wallingford, pp 117–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum A, Munns R, Passioura JB, Turner NC, Sharp RE, Boyer JS, Nguyen HT, Hsiao TC. 1996. Genetically engineered plants resistant to soil drying and salt stress: how to interpret osmotic relations? Plant Physiol. 110: 1051–1053

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke JM, DePauw RM, Townley-Smith TF. 1992. Evaluation of methods for quantification of drought tolerance in wheat. Crop Sci. 32: 723–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn JN. 1993. Evaluation of soils, climate and land use information at three scales: The case of low income bean farming in Latin America. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Reading, Reading, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer RA, Maurer R. 1978. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 29: 897–912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh AK, Ishuiki K, Toyota M, Kusutani A, Asanuma K. 2000. Water potential, stomatal dimension and leaf gas exchange in soybean plants under long-term moisture deficit. Jpn. J. Trop. Agr. 44: 30–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Haterlein AJ. 1983. Bean. In ID Tearce, MM Peet, eds, Crop-Water Relations, Wiley Pub., New York, pp 157–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam MS, Haque MM, Khan MM, Hidaka T, Karim MA. 2004. Effect of fertilizer potassium on growth, yield and water relations of bushbean (Phaseolus vulgaris L). under water stress conditions. Jpn. J. Trop. Agr. 48: 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones HG. 1979. Stomatal behaviour and breeding for drought resistance. In H Mussel, RC Staples, eds, Stress Physiology in Crop Plants, Wiley Interscience, New York, pp 408–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Elston J. 1992. Genetic difference in leaf water relations between Brassica juncea and B. napus. Ann. Bot. 70: 3–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Lizana C, Wentworth M, Martinez JP, Villegas D, Meneses R, Murchie EH, Pastenes C, Lercari B, Vernieri P, Horton P, Pinto M. 2006. Differential adaptation of two varieties of common bean to abiotic stress. I. Effects of drought on yield and photosynthesis. J. Exp. Bot. 57: 685–697

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez JP, Silva H, Ledent JF, Pinto M. 2007. Effect of drought stress on the osmotic adjustment, cell wall elasticity and cell volume of six cultivars of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Europ. J. Agron. 26: 30–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mkandawire ABC. 1987. Productivity of Malawian landrace dry beans under intercropping and drought conditions. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing (Diss. Abstr. 8807094).

    Google Scholar 

  • Munoz-Perea CG, Teran H, Allen RG, Wright JM, Westermann DT, Singh SP. 2006. Selection for drought resistance in dry bean landraces and cultivars. Crop Sci. 46: 2111–2120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuñez-Barrios A, Hoogenboom G, Nesmith DC. 2005. Drought stress and the distribution of vegetative and reproductive traits of bean cultivar. Sci. Agric. (Piraciaba, Brazil), 62: 18–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Omae H, Kumar A, Kashiwaba K, Shono M. 2007. Assessing drought tolerance of snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from genotypic differences in leaf water relations, shoot growth and photosynthetic parameters. Plant Prod. Sci. 10: 28–35

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Omae H, Kumar A, Egawa Y, Kashiwaba K, Shono M. 2005. Genotypic differences in plant water status and relationship with reproductive responses in snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) during water stress. Jpn. J. Trop. Agr. 49: 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons LR, Howe TK. 1984. Effects of water stress on the water relations of Phaseolus vulgaris and the drought resistant Phaseolus acutifolius. Physiol. Plant 60: 197–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez-Vallejo P, Kelly JD. 1998. Traits related to drought resistance in common bean. Euphytica 99: 127–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosales-Serna R, Kohashi-Shibat, J, Acosta-Gallegos JA, Trejo-Lopez C, Ortiz-Cereceres J, Kelly JD. 2004. Biomass distribution, maturity acceleration and yield in droughtstressed common bean cultivars. Field Crops Res. 85: 203–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez J, Manzanares M, de Andres EF, Tenorio JL, Ayerbe L. 1998. Turgor maintenance, osmotic adjustment and soluble sugar and proline accumulation in 49 pea cultivars in response to water stress. Field Crops Res. 59: 225–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sangakkara UR, Hartwig UA, Nosberger J. 1996. Response of root branching and shoot water potentials of french beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to soil moisture and fertilizer potassium. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 177: 165–173

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shen XY, Webster BD. 1986. Effects of water stress on pollen of Phaseolus vulgaris L. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 111: 907–810

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh SP. 2001. Broadening the genetic base of common bean cultivars: a review. Crop Sci. 41: 1659–1675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki K, Tsukaguchi T, Takeda H, Egawa Y. 2001. Decrease of pollen stainability of snap bean at high temperatures and relationship to heat tolerance. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 126: 571–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Terán H, Singh SP. 2002. Comparison of sources and lines selected for drought resistance in common bean. Crop Sci. 42: 64–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tsukaguchi T, Kawamitsu Y, Takeda K, Suzuki H, Egawa Y. 2003. Water status of flower buds and leaves as affected by temperature in heat-tolerant and heat-sensitive cultivars of snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Plant Prod. Sci. 6: 24–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner NC. 1986. Adaptation to water deficits: a changing perspective. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 13: 175–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Boogaard R, de Boer M, Veneklaas EJ, Lanibers H. 1996. Relative growth rate, biomass allocation pattern and water use efficiency of three wheat cultivars during early ontogeny as dependent on water availability. Physiol. Plant. 98: 493–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White JW, Singh SP. 1991. Breeding for adaptation to drought. In A van Shoonhoven, O Voysest, eds, Common Beans: Research for crop improvement. CABI, Walingford, and CIAT, Cali. pp 501–560

    Google Scholar 

  • White JW, Ochoa R, Ibarra F, Singh SP. 1994. Inheritance of seed yield, maturity and seed weight of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) under semiarid rainfed conditions. J. Agr. Sci. (Cambridge) 122: 265–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wortmann CS, Kirby RA, Eledu CA, Allan DJ. 1998. Atlas of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) production in Africa. CIAT, Cali.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu DX, Wang GX. 2000. Interaction of CO2 enrichment and drought on growth, water use, and yield of broad bean (Vicia faba). Environ. Exp. Bot. 43: 131–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang HM, Wang GX. 2001. Leaf stomatal density and distribution in Triticum aestivum under drought and CO2 enrichment. Acta Phytoecol. Sin. 25: 312–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang H.M, Zhang XY, Wang GX. 2004. Relationships between stomatal character, photosynthetic character and seed chemical composition in grass pea at different water avail abilities. J. Agr. Sci. (Cambridge) 142: 675–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Apurba Kanti Choudhury.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Choudhury, A.K., Karim, A., Haque, M. et al. Genotypic variability in plant water status of French bean under drought stress. J. Crop Sci. Biotechnol. 14, 17–24 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12892-010-0082-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12892-010-0082-z

Key words

Navigation