Research Article

Genetic Diversity in Common Beans (Phaseolus vulgarus L.) Collected from Different Ecological Zones of Malakand Division (A Part of the Sino Japanese Region of Pakistan)

Khan Sher1*, Muhammad Subhan1, Muhammad Nisar2, Ali Hazrat2, Zahid Fazal1, Gul Rahim2, Imran Ahmad1, Riaz ul Haq1 and Shamia Bibi1

1Department of Botany, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Sheringal, Dir Upper, Pakistan; 2Department of Botany, University of Malakand, Malakand, Pakistan.

Received | July 24, 2020; Accepted | October 25, 2020; Published | November 20, 2020

*Correspondence | Khan Sher, Department of Botany, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Sheringal, Dir Upper, Pakistan; Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Citation | Sher, K., M. Subhan, M. Nisar, A. Hazrat, Z. Fazal, G. Rahim, I. Ahmad, R. Haq and S. Bibi. 2020. Genetic diversity in common beans (Phaseolus vulgarus L.) collected from different ecological zones of Malakand division (A part of the Sino Japanese Region of Pakistan). Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 36(4): 1203-1213.

DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2020/36.4.1203.1213

Keywords | Genetic diversity, Common beans, Malakand division, Morphometric, Sino-Japanese region

Introduction

The importance of genetic diversity in terms of today’s development of new high yielding and resistant to insects pests and environmental stresses lies in the reality, that whether we can feed the world in 2050 and beyond? This most sensitive question is still unanswered by the scientific community since global population is exploding and will exceed 9 billion in 2050. At that time, the per capita availability of water and food will decrease if the level of production per unit area stays the same (Sher et al., 2019). Moreover, the life will become more miserable to compete with the horrors of global climate change resulting in increased evapotranspiration and vulnerability of existing varieties of crops. Therefore, it becomes more important to look at the evolution of tolerant genotypes to environmental vagaries for scrutiny of desired germplasms is inevitable. Keeping in view the above reality, efforts were made to decipher the available biodiversity in common beans existing in Malakand Division.

Common bean is a member of the family Papilanaceae in the flora of Pakistan (Ali and Nasir, 1977). This family contains almost 55 species. Out of which five species are broadly cultivated. These species are: P. vulgaris L. (Common bean, snap beans), P. lunatus L. (Lima bean), P. coccineus L. (Runner bean), P. acutifolius var. latifolius and P. dumosus (P. polyanthus Green) (Debouck et al., 1993). The growth habit of this plant is variable, ranging from bush (determinate) to high climbers (indeterminate) (Sher et al., 2019). Beans are grown in tropical, subtropical and temperate regions of the world, with a total cultivated area of 25.2 million ha with annual seed production of 19.7 million tons (Burle et al., 2010). Brazil remains the world’s largest producer and consumer of the beans followed by Mexico (Sher et al., 2019). These countries are almost self-sufficient in bean crop, but their imports are necessary to supplement the production deficit periodically (Weiss et al., 2000).

Common bean is one of the most essential food nutrients having proteins, carbohydrates and certain minerals and vitamins (Boye et al., 2010) tannins, anthocyanin and flavonoids (Aparicio et al., 2005) anthocyanin in certain common beans like black and blue-violet beans (Vignolini, 2004), anthocyanin, polyphenols and antioxidant potential in 29 bean grains in the USA and CIAT (Akond et al., 2011), vitamins other minerals and unsaturated fatty acids (linoleic acid) and soluble fiber (Rodino et al., 2009). The common bean is also a source of certain other important elements like Fe, Zn, Cu, P, K, Mg and Ca. Moreover, there is no cholesterol at all and further studies suggest that regular use of common bean as part of meal reduces cholesterol levels in the body. Being a source of iron, it provides 22 to 30% of the daily recommended levels from a single diet (Weiss and Kelly, 2000).

In Pakistan, common bean grows well in those areas where the environments are appropriate for the cultivation and growth of maize crop especially the drier areas (Alghamdi, 2007). It is a hot seasonal crop and fails to grow under low temperature i.e. below 20 oC. It requires a temperature ranging from 20 to 25 oC for enhanced growth and fructification (Alghamdi and Ali, 2004). In most instances, local farmers in Pakistan are continuing the long-standing practice of planting seed they set aside from a previous year’s harvest. Such locally harvested seeds mostly exhibit genetic adaptation to local environments (Pfeiffer et al., 2006). In Pakistan, common bean crop is cultivated on 141,000 ha area with total seed production till 2012 was of 93 thousand tons (Anonymous, 2012). Some of the landraces produced in the Pakistan are of prime importance due to their good quality and higher productivity. In Pakistan, this crop has a promising future, and is normally considered to be the neglected legume as far as the varietal improvement is concerned (Nisar et al., 2011) Therefore, attempts are needed to improve its yield by the development of high yielding varieties through molecular based practices for which identification promising parents is essential.

As far as the research area is concerned, Malakand division is a part of sinojapanese region located in the northern part of Pakistan. This country has endowed with a variety of habitat ranging from the sea shore at Arabian Sea to the peak of hamalya with K-2 in the north having 8,611 meters elevation above sea level and is the second highest mountain in the world, after Mount Everest at 8,848 meters (K2, Britannica.com. Retrieved 23 January 2010). The Altitude of Malakand division and that of Dir Kohistan ranges from 1600 meter of oak and scrub forest to Alpine and sub alpine zone (More than 6000 meters) above the average sea level (Khan et al., 2011). The huge differences in altitude and variation in topography produces drastic climate changes, which result in luxuriant vegetation ranging from sub-tropical to alpine regions having moist and dry temperate forests in the study area (Ali et al., 2010).

 

Materials and Methods

Collection of landraces of common beans

During the years 2014 and 2015, a number of tours were scheduled to collect seeds of common beans from numerous zones of Malakand division (Figure 1) and almost 150 entries were collected from different areas of the division. Out of 150 landraces, only 50 samples were selected based on certain visible characteristics of the seeds. Details of the endemic collected seeds are given in the Table 1.

 

Table 1: Detail of the local common bean landraces of Malakand division.

No.	Area of collection	District	Latitude	Longitude	Elevation
P 01	Lamoti	Dir upper	35°29'13.83"N	72°13'54.98"E	8590 ft.
P 02	Barawal khas	Dir upper	35° 7' 55.0614"N	71° 41' 27.8376"E	4753 ft.
P 03	Tar patar	Dir upper
P 04	Merin	Dir upper
P 05	Domail	Dir upper	33° 1'24.34"N	70°44'47.70"E	1173 ft.
P 06	Ouch	Dir Lower	34°43'49.88"N	72° 1'6.98"E	2834 ft.
P 07	Drosh	Chatral	35°34'6.41"N	71°48'13.55"E	4433 ft.
P 08	Kharkanii	Dir Lower	34°42'58.48"N	72° 0'2.65"E	2683 ft.
P 09	Thal	Dir upper	35°29'13.83"N	72°13'54.98"E	8590 ft.
P 10	Boni	Chatral	36°16'13.65"N	72°15'14.92"E	6698 ft.
P 11	Larpor	Shangla	34°53' 13.8520"N	72° 45' 25.2086"E
P 12	Chakesar	Shangla	34° 47' 8.1575"N	72° 46' 2.4424"E	3765 ft.
P 13	Chakesar	Shangla	34° 47' 8.1575"N	2° 46' 2.4424"E
P 14	Chakesar	Shangla
P 15	Kalkot	Dir upper	35° 24'50.6862"N	72° 17' 1.5000"E	8949 ft.
P 16	Ashret	Chatral	35° 46'11.5795"N	71° 46'26.7971"E	10487 ft.
P 17	Bebyawar	Upper dir	35° 7'36.5326"N	71° 56'29.8176"E	3807 ft.
P 18	L. Banda	Upper dir	30° 22'31.1556"N	69° 20'42.4176"E
P 19	Kharkanii	Dir Lower	71° 54'57.9704"N	71° 48'34.8988"E
P 20	Benl	Upper dir	34° 57' 9.4338"N	72° 19' 52.0068"E
P 21	L. Banda	Upper dir	34° 54'39.6176"N	72° 41' 44.4347"E
P 22	Malam	Swat	34° 47'57.6373"N	72° 34'17.1127"E	8150 ft.
P 23	Maiselwa	Swat	34° 57'9.4338"N	72° 19'52.0068"E
P 24	Aglain bean	Swat
P 25	Kohistan	Swat	35° 15'40.0547"N	73° 16'35.5300"E	7882 ft.
P 26	Alporai	Shangla	34° 55'17.0627"N	72° 38' 3.6067"E	4889 ft.
P 27	Mastoj	Chatral	36° 17' 8.5165"N	72° 31' 45.6823"E	7612 ft.
P 28	Garam chashma	Chatral	35° 59'50.8798"N	71° 33' 48.5759"E	7757 ft.
P 29	Medan	Lower Dir	34°58'9.30"N	71° 50' 48.1780"E	3667 ft.
P 30	Takot		34° 74'16.9444"N	72° 55' 44.8223"E	1771 ft.
P 31	U. Gaonai		34° 57' 9.4338"N	72° 19' 52.0068"E
P 32	Kishware
P 33	Banda	Upper Dir	35° 9'7.24"N	72°34'54.68"E	6014 ft.
P 34	Batand	Upper Dir
P 35	Domail		33° 1'24.34"N	70°44'47.70"E	1173 ft.
P 36	Mian Banda	Lower Dir
P 37	Ilkopian
P 38	Menin
P 39	Mian Banda	Lower Dir
P 40	Asbnar	Lower Dir
P 41	Kharkanii	Lower Dir	71° 54'57.9704"N	71° 48'34.8988"E
P 42	Khwago oboe	Upper Dir
P 43	Malam Jaba	Swat	34° 47'57.6373"N	72° 34'17.1127"E	8150 ft.
P 44	Wari	Upper Dir	34°59'18.97"N	72° 2'27.36"E	3492 ft.
P 45	L. Banda
P 46	Bamborat	Chatral
P 47	Jagam	Upper Dir
P 48	Mastoj	Chatral	36° 17' 8.5165"N	72° 31' 45.6823"E	7612 ft.
P 49	Chinarano	Upper Dir	35° 2'1.39"N	71°41'29.00"E	6709 ft.
P 50	Kadh	Upper Dir

 

 

Agronomical and experimental field layout

The evaluation of 50 entries of common bean were conducted in the experimental field of Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, located at coordinates 35.2738° N, 72.0050° E (data taken by satellite image). Experiments were conducted during the planting seasons for two successive years (2016 and 2017). The Soil contents of the proposed area were studied in the Swat Agriculture Research Institute (SARI). The soil of the experimental field was slightly alkaline (pH 8.8), silty loam in texture and deficient in N (0.032%) and medium in both P2O5 (40.5 mg kg-1) and K2O (138 mg kg-1). The research plot was laid out in triplicate randomized complete block design (RCBD). Row to row and plant to plant distance was kept as per standard agricultural practices for this crop. The size of each experimental unit was kept at 4 x 3 m2.

Evaluation of qualitative and qualitative traits

A total of six qualitative traits were studied on 10 randomly selected plants in common bean lines. The quantitative morphological characteristics were numerically encoded along with allies Number for further analysis as shown in Table 2. The data for quantitative traits included six parameters viz. Leaflet Length (cm), No. of Pods plant-1), No. of Seeds pod-1, Dry Pod weight (g), Plant height (cm), Pod length (cm), total Biomass (kg ha-1), Seed Yield (kg ha-1) and Harvest Index. Harvest index (HI) was measured by the percent ratio of seed yield to the total biomass or above ground material by using the following formula.

HI= (Seed Yield/Total Biomass)*100

 

Table 2: Seeds characteristics with codes scored.

No.	Seed colour	Appearance	%	Freq.
1	Brown	15	27.3	0.273
2	Red	12	21.8	0.218
3	Black	9	16.4	0.164
4	Cream	5	9.1	0.091
5	Golden	3	5.5	0.055
6	Off white	3	5.5	0.055
7	Pink	2	3.6	0.036
8	Dark brown	1	1.8	0.018
9	Dark red	1	1.8	0.018
10	Gray	1	1.8	0.018
11	Green	1	1.8	0.018
12	Wood colour	1	1.8	0.018
13	White	1	1.8	0.018

 

Statistical analysis

The most common parameters like Mean, Analysis of variance (ANOVA), Variance coefficient and Standard errors of basic statistics were computed by using Statistix 8.1. Software. The Pearson correlation coefficient was performed to determine the correlation between the different traits as well as between the groups using the SPSS software 18.0 (Keneni et al., 2005). Kruskal-Wallis software program was used to find the genetic diversity between the different groups on the basis of quantitative and qualitative traits (Kruskal and Wallis, 1952). Data matrix was processed using the Jaccard Similarity Coefficient and two way cluster analysis (TWCA) conducted using PC-ORD in order to find out the genetic association/linkage (GA/L) within bean landraces.

 

Results and Discussion

Qualitative trait analysis

Two alleles were found responsible for the pod distal end, pointed (90%) and blunt distal end (10%). The pod shape was also controlled by two alleles; curved (88.10%) having 0.88 frequencies, and straight (11.90%) with 0.01 frequencies. Similarly, two alleles were also found responsible for pod colors; Green (97.62%) with 0.98 frequencies and purple tinge (2.38%) with 0.02 frequencies (Table 3). Two main traits of the seeds of common beans viz. seed shape and seed color (Table 3) were studied. Three alleles were found responsible for seed shape; cubed (52.17% with 0.57 frequencies), kidney (30.43% samples with 0.33 frequencies) and round seed shape (13.04% appearance and 0.14 frequencies), while in some other genotypes the Seed shape was Small oval 2.17% and large oval 2.17%. Amongst other variations found in common bean seed coat color was most frequent as shown in Table 4. Similarly, the seed coat colour was defined by 13 alleles; in majority of the cases the seed coat colour was brown (27.3 %) followed by red (21.3%), black (16.4 %), cream (9.1 %), golden (5.5%), off white (5.5%), pink (3.6%), dark brown (1.8%), dark red (1.8%), gray (1.8%), green (1.8%), wood colour and white (1.8% each) (1.8) (Table 5 and Figure 2).

 

Table 3: Percentage and frequency distribution of pod characteristics.

Pod character	Trait	No.	Allelic no.	% nt	Freq.
Pod distal end	Pointed	38	1	90.48	0.90
	Blunt	4	2	9.52	0.10
Pod shape	Curved	37	1	88.10	0.88
	Straight	5	2	11.90	0.01
Pod color	Blue	1	1	2.38	0.02
	Green	41	2	97.62	0.98

 

Table 4: Percentage and frequency distribution of seed shape.

Character	No.	Allelic No.	%	Frequency
Cuboid	24	1	52.17	0.57
Kidney	14	2	30.43	0.33
Round	4	3	8.7	0.14

 

Table 5: Percentage and frequency distribution of seed coat color.

S. No	Seed colour	Occ.	%	Freq.	S. No	Seed colour	Occ.	%	Freq.
1	Brown	15	27.3	0.27	8	Dark brown	1	1.8	0.02
2	Red	12	21.8	0.22	9	Dark red	1	1.8	0.02
3	Black	9	16.4	0.16	10	Gray	1	1.8	0.02
4	Cream	5	9.1	0.09	11	Green	1	1.8	0.02
5	Golden	3	5.5	0.06	12	Wooden	1	1.8	0.02
6	Off white	3	5.5	0.06	13	White	1	1.8	0.02
7	Pink	2	3.6	0.04

 

Flower characteristics

In flower colour two floral characteristics were studied; standard and wing colors. In standard colour, 4 alleles were involved to express their phenotypic appearance. In most of the cases the floral color (standard colour) was white having 45.24 % and 0.45 frequencies followed by yellow floral colour having 14.29% with 0.14 frequencies. The pink and purple scored 3rd and 4th category having 11.90% and 9.52% cases, respectively. In 57.14% cases the anther colour was green with 0.57 frequencies followed by white colour having 14.29%, representation. The white anther colour comes on the 3rd position, having 9.52% appearance as shown in Table 6.

 

Table 6: Percentage and frequency distribution of flower colour of the tested germplasms.

S. No.	Character	Colour	%	Freq.	Allelic No.
1	Floral color (standard color)	White	45	0.45	1
		Pink	12	0.12	2
		Yellow	14	0.14	3
		Purple	10	0.1	4
2	Wing color	White	36	0.36	1
		Green	26	0.26	2
		Brown	17	0.17	3
		Pink	12	0.12	4

 

 

Quantitative analysis

The quantitative data through Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significant differences among the bean genotypes for morphological traits as given in the Table 9. The data of all the nine parameters were found highly significant with a p value less than 0.005. Terminal Leaflet Length was classified into 31 LSD groups. In 24 groups (A, B, etc.), the means are not significantly different from one another. The number of Pods Plant-1 was classified into 22 LSD groups, in 17 groups (A, B, etc.) the mean value was not significantly different from one another. Number of Seeds Pod-1were classified into 22 LSD Groups, in 11 groups (A, B, etc.) the mean value was not significantly different from one another. The Dry Pod Weight was classified into 29 LSD Groups, in 21 groups (A, B, etc.) the mean value was not significantly different from one another. Plant Height was classified into 28 LSD groups, in 19 groups (A, B, etc.); the mean value was not significantly different from one another. Pod Length was classified into 31 LSD groups; in 21 groups the mean values were not significantly different from one another. Biomass were classified into 23 LSD groups, amongst all in 19 groups the mean values were not significantly different from one another. Grain Yield was classified into 31 LSD groups, in 26 groups the mean value was not significantly different from one another. And lastly Harvest Index was classified into 31 LSD groups; in 25 groups the means are not significantly different from one another. Similarly, the p values of all the parameters were found 0.0000. It showed that the data is highly significant. Similarly, the minimum values in all the cases were 0 explained that some of the accessions failed to survive in the changed environment. While the maximum values were 15.50, 56, 11.9, 3.7, 494.8, 11.9, 2201, 108.3 and 59.0 for Leaf Length, Number of Pods Plant-1, Number of Seeds Pod-1, Dry Pod Weigh, Plant Height, Pod Length, Biomass, Grain Yield and Harvest Index respectively. While the mean values of Leaf Length, Number of Pods Plant-1, Number of Seeds Pod-1, Dry Pod Weigh, Plant Height, Pod Length, Biomass, Grain Yield and Harvest Index were 7.7627, 17.020, 4.8055, 0.9464, 182.63, 6.2655, 56.973, 22.565 and 29.774 respectively (Table 7).

 

Table 7: ANOVA and LSD test for quantitative traits.

Variables	Values	Variable groups		Mean	P value
	Max value	LSD groups	Non sig groups
Leaflet length	15.50	31	24	7.7627	0.0000
No. Pods per plant	56	22	17	17.020	0.0000
No. Seeds per pod	11.9	22	17	4.8055	0.0000
Dry pod weight	3.7	29	21	0.9464	0.0000
Plant height	494.8	28	19	182.63	0.0000
Pod length	11.9	31	21	6.2655	0.0000
Biomass	220.1	23	19	56.973	0.0000
Grain yield	108.3	31	26	22.565	0.0000
Harvest index	59.0	31	25	29.774	0.0000

 

Descriptive statistics

The overall mean coefficient of variation for all the variables were 73%, however it was different for individual parameters as given in Table 8. For terminal Leaf Length it was 61%, for a Number of Pods per Plant (64.6%), number of Seeds per Plant (81%), Dry Pod Weight (99%), Plant Height (78%), Pod Length (63%), Biomass study (67.6%), Grain Yield (79%), and Harvest Index (62%). Similarly, the mean value was 7.8, 4.8, 17, 1, 183, 6.3, 57, 22.6 and 30 for the terminal Leaf Length, Number of Pods Plant-1, Number of Seeds Plant-1, Dry Pod Weight, Plant Height, Pod Length, Biomass study, Yield per Plant and Harvest Index, respectively.

 

Table 8: Descriptive statistics of all the parameters studied.

Variables	Mean	Sd ± se	Min.	Max.	C.V%
Leaflet length	7.8	4.7653±0.6426	0.0	15.5	61.3
No. pods per plant	4.8	3.1066±0.4189	0.0	11.9	64.6
No. seeds per pod	17.0	13.832±1.8651	0.0	56.0	81.2
Dry pod weight	1.0	0.9453±0.1275	0.0	3.6	99.0
Plant height	182.6	142.71±19.243	0.0	494.8	78.1
Pod length	6.3	3.956±0.5334	0.0	11.9	63.1
Biomass study	57.0	38.528±5.1951	0.0	220.1	67.6
Grain yield	22.6	17.888±2.412	0.0	108.2	79.3
Harvest index	29.8	18.584±2.5058	0.0	58.9	62.4
Overall coefficient of variance					73.0

 

Correlation coefficient

The correlation coefficients among nine parameters including yield contributing traits of all the genotypes of common bean were computed for comparison. Forty five combinations were identified in this study having a strong correlation. All the combinations showed positive correlation as given in Table 9. The strong correlations above 50% existed in 30 combinations out of 45, which comprised 67% of all the combinations. The strong correlation exists in the Number of pods per plant to Terminal leaf length (r=0.74). Number of seeds Pod-1 to Terminal leaf length (r=0.81) and Number of pods per plant (r=0.60). Dry pod weight to Number of pods plant-1 (r=0.51). Plant height to Terminal leaf length (r=0.61) and number of seeds Pod-1 (r=0.61). Pod length to Terminal leaf length (r=0.84), Number of Pods Plant-1 (r=0.75), Number of seeds Pod-1 (r=0.76), dry pod weight (r=0.60) and plant height (r=0.62). Terminal leaf length to Biomass (r=0.86)), number of pods plant-1 (r= 0.69), number of seeds Pod-1 (r=0.71), Dry pod weight (r=0.51), Plant height (r=0.53) and pod length (r=0.80). Likewise, Seed Yield was strongly correlated to terminal leaflet length (r=0.77, Number of pods plant-1 (r=0.64), number of seeds Pod-1 (r=0.59), Pod length (r=0.75) and biomass (r=0.94). Harvest index was largely dependent on Terminal Leaf Length (r=0.85), Number of Pods Plant-1 (r=0.65), Number of

 

Table 9: Correlations (Pearson) weighting variable rep.

Variables	TLL	P/P	S/P	DPW	PH	PL	BM	SY	HI
Terminal leaf length (TLL)	1.00
# of pods plant-1 (P/P)	0.74	1.00
# of seeds pod-1 (S/P)	0.81	0.60	1.00
Dry pod weight (DPW)	0.48	0.51	0.50	1.00
Plant height cm (PH)	0.61	0.39	0.61	0.50	1.00
Pod length cm (PL)	0.84	0.75	0.76	0.60	0.62	1.00
Biomass plant-1 (g)	0.86	0.69	0.71	0.51	0.53	0.80	1.00
Seed yield plant-1 (g)	0.77	0.64	0.59	0.47	0.47	0.75	0.94	1.00
harvest index %	0.85	0.65	0.77	0.55	0.69	0.87	0.79	0.82	1.00

Cases Included 50 Missing Cases 0.

 

Seeds Pod-1 (r=0.77), Dry Pod Weight (r=0.55), Plant Height (r=0.69), Pod Length (r=0.87), Biomass (r=0.79) and Grain Yield (r=0.82) (Table 9).

Principal component analysis

The principal component analysis (PCA) identifying the quantitative variables of 50 common bean landraces are shown in Table 10. The eigenvalues of more than 60.8% counted a total of 70% genetic variability, which was contributed by four principal components.

 

Table 10: Principal Component Analysis of 9 quantitative traits among common bean lines, Eigenvalue, percentage Variability explained by first 4 components.

Factor	PC-1	PC-2	PC-3	PC-4
Percent of variance	71.5	8.3	6.8	5
Cumulative percent of variance	71.5	79.8	86.5	91.5
Terminal leaf length	-0.3656	0.1447	-0.169	0.1854
No. pods per plant	-0.312	0.262	0.4092	0.5104
No. seeds per pod	-0.3323	-0.1378	-0.2403	0.4569
Dry pod weight	-0.2593	-0.5133	0.734	-0.2147
Plant height	-0.2778	-0.6342	-0.4152	-0.1331
Pod length	-0.3659	0.0016	0.0428	0.1442
Biomass	-0.36	0.3003	-0.0268	-0.3178
Seed yield	-0.3409	0.3664	-0.0024	-0.5479
Harvest index	-0.3667	-0.0359	-0.1804	-0.103

 

In the first principal component (PC-1) No positive value was found. In PC-2 high positive values were found in terminal leaflet length (0.1447), Number of pods plant-1 (0.262), Pod length (0.0016), and Biomass (0.3003) and grain yield (0.3664). In PC-3 the high positive values were found for Number of Pods Plant-1 (0.4092), Dry Pod Weight (0.734) and Pod Length (0.0428). While in PC-4 the high positive values were found in the Terminal Leaf Length (0.1854), Number of Pods Plant-1 (0.5104), Number of Seeds Pod-1 (0.4569) and Pod Length (0.1442) (Table 10).

 

Table 11: One-Way cluster bean landraces based on dendrogram.

L-I	L-II
C-I	C-II		C-III
G-I	G-II	G-III	G-IV	G-V	G-VI	G-VII	G-VIII
49	18	25	28	7	51	10	1
50	47	36	44	9	--	31	39
6	--	32	16	2	--	29	17
41	--	21	42	43	--	55	27
45	--	22	11	4	--	12	35
38	--	19	34	5	--	14	15
40	--	26	--	3	--	48	33
30	--	46	--	52	--	13	--
37	--	--	--	54	--	--	--
23	--	--	--	53	--	--	--
24	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
8	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
20	--	--	--	--	--	--	--

 

One way cluster analysis

One Way Cluster Analysis (OWCA) was performed to estimate the relation amongst the collected bean landraces. The dendrogram distributed 55 lines into 2 lineages. Lineage I (L-I) has been split into one cluster. C-I was comprised of accessions Number 49, 50, 6, 41, 45, 38, 40, 30, 37, 23, 24, 8 and 20. All these were missing accessions and failed to grow in the changed environment due to various factors. Lineage II (L-II) was classified into two clusters C-II and C-III. C-II was further classified into two groups G-II and G-III. G-II contains two accessions i.e. 18 and 47, while G-III was comprised of 25, 36, 32, 21, 22, 19, 26 and 46 accessions. C-III was further classified into five groups, G-IV to G-VIII. G-IV was comprised of 28, 44, 16, 42, 11and 34, G-V was comprised of 7, 9, 2, 43, 4, 5, 3 and 52. G-VI was comprised of 51. G-VII was comprised of 10,31,29,55,12,14,48 and 13 while the G-VIII was comprised of 1, 39, 17,27,35,15 and 33 as shown in the Table 11 and Figure 3.

 

 

Diversity or Variation is a complementary part of the nature and considered to be a universal tool of existence. Diversity brings better genotype (s) adapted to the changing environment. In this activity almost, all genotypes (50 in number) of the local climate showed open and visible genetic and morphological variation that is linked with many workers (Zeven, 1997). In breeding process, the initial germplasm collections are based purely on morphological and agronomic characteristics and having prime importance (Stoilova et al., 2005). Similarly, in common beans, the external exposure also plays important role in adaptation to the local environment (Wright and Kelly 2011). Furthermore, local garden-forms of common bean tend to reach towards homogeneity because, fewer plants in a year will be sufficient to produce seeds (Maxted et al., 2011). God Almighty has produced enormous number of legumes in the world, including common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), which are the most consumed grains. In some countries beans are the only source of protein in human food. In Portugal and Bulgaria, beans are used as traditional food and farmers still depend on old varieties (Harlan, 1971). In Pakistan, common beans are abandoned legumes, and this research has been suggested to establish gene pool of this neglected crop. The preservation, study and use of indigenous plant materials are major breeding materials in various countries including Pakistan. Introduction, selection and hybridization are the basic principles of breeding. The most important of these problems include human factors that affect the genetic diversity like the instant endeavor is a valuable for evolution of high yielding, disease and insect pests resistant cultivars adapted to varying ago-ecological regions (Krasteva et al., 2002). The local landraces play important role in the development of new species (Stoilova et al., 2005); therefore, the attempt must be made in the long run to preserve the locally diverse genotypes for future use. As per prime objective of this work all the landmarks were collected from different areas of Malakand division. Moreover, the local landmarks were compared with some high yielding exotic landmarks that were acquired from the PGRI (NARC) Pakistan.

All landraces were sown in the botanical field of Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Sheringal Dir Upper and University of Malakand, Chakdara, Dir Lower for the estimation of morphological diversity and adaptability to the new environment. The data collected were then subjected to statistical analysis. Both quantitative and qualitative traits showed a high degree of diversity in all the accessions. The exotic landraces showed high variability in comparison with the local landmarks. The results are supported by many workers that vegetative characteristics, including pod or leaf variability exhibit greater environmental and cultivar effects than seed characters (Housley et al., 1982).

Lastly it was proved that a significant variation is found in the collected germplasm with some extra unique characteristics, like early cooking, high productivity and proteomic importance as compared to exotic landraces. Furthermore, it needs further experimentation to obtain best quality germplasm of this neglected crop in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Pakistan at large (Sher et al., 2019).

 

Novelty Statement

Our work was aimed to identify diversity of common bean grown/ cultivated in the hilly areas of malakand division, KP, Pakistan. This activity was novel and was not carried out in ths area.

 

Author’s Contribution

Khan Sher: Result collection and foeld work, objective and title, configuration

Muhammad Subhan and Muhammad Nisar: Result callibration with softwares

Ali Hazrat: Discussion callibration with result

Zahid Fazal: Helped in collection of data from the field

Gul Rahim: Refrences designing according to the journal standarad.

Imran Ahmad and Riaz ul Haq: Review of literature.

Shamia Bibi: Overall compilation of the paper

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

 

References

Akond, M., A.S.M. Golam, L. Khandaker, J.L. Berthold. Gates, K. Peters, H. Delong and K. Husain. 2011. Anthocyanin, Total polyphenols and antioxidant activity of common bean. Am. J. Food Technol., 6(5): 385- 394. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajft.2011.385.394

Alghamdi, S.S., 2007. Genetic behavior of some selected faba bean genotypes. African Crop Sci. Conference proceedings. Afr. Crop Sci. Soc. El-Minia, Egypt, 8: 709-714.

Alghamdi, S.S.K. and A. Ali. 2004. Performance of several newly bred faba bean lines. Egypt. J. Plant Breed, 8: 189-200. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=BCfSDA4AAAAJandhl=en

Ali, S.I. and E. Nasir. 1977. Flora of Pakistan No.100. Department of Botany, University of Karachi, Karachi. http://legacy.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan

Ali, H., M. Qaiser and J. Alam. 2010. Conservation status of Cadaba heterotricha stocks (capparidaceae) an endangered species in Pakistan Pak. J. Bot., 42(1): 35-46. http://www.pakbs.org/pjbot/PDFs/42(3)/PJB42(3)1553.pdf

Anonymous, 2012. Project coordinator’s Report of AICRP on MULLARP. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India. https://www.arccjournals.com/journal/agricultural-science-digest/D-4172.

Anonymous, 2014. Encyclopedia of India-China Cultural Contacts. MaXposure Media Group (I) Pvt. Ltd. 2nd floor Mira Corporate Suites, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi, 110065, India. https://www.academia.edu/22670061/Encyclopedia_of_India-China_Cultural_Contacts_vol_I

Aparicio, F.X., B.L. Manzo and P.G. Loarca. 2005. Comparison of anti-mutagenic activity of phenolic compounds in newly harvested and stored common beans Phaseolus vulgaris against aflatoxin B1. J. Food Sci., 70: 73-78. https://europepmc.org/article/agr/ind43689824, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.tb09068.x

Boye, J., F. Zaire and A. Plutarch. 2010. Pulse proteins: Processing, characterization, functional properties and applications in food and feed. Food Res. Int., 43: 414-431. https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201301799180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2009.09.003

Burle, M.L., J.R. Fonseca, J.A. Kami and P. Gepts. 2010. Microsatellite diversity and genetic structure among common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) landraces in Brazil, a secondary center of diversity. Theor. Appl. Genet., 121: 801–813. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20502861/, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-010-1350-5

Debouck, D.G., O. Toro, O.M. Paredes, W.C. Johnson and P. Gepts. 1993. Genetic diversity and ecological distribution of Phaseolus vulgaris in northwestern South America. Econ. Bot., 47: 408–423. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02861451, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02907356

Gepts, 1991. Genetic diversity in cultivated common bean. I. Allozyme, Crop Sci., 31: 19–23. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100010004x

Hanaa, H. and E. Ali. 2011. Agronomic performance of seven peas (Pisum sativum) genotypes with five sowing dates in sandy soil. Acta Agron. Hungarica, 59(4): 337-347. https://akjournals.com/view/journals/014/59/4/article-p337.xml, https://doi.org/10.1556/AAgr.59.2011.4.5

Harlan, J.R., 1971. Agricultural origins: Centers and noncenters. Science, 174: 468–474. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/174/4008/468, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.174.4008.468

Housley, T.L., A.W. Kirleis, H.W. Ohm and F.L. Patterson. 1982. Dry matter accumulation in soft red winter wheat seeds. Crop Sci., 22: 290 - 294. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00024018, https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1982.0011183X002200020022x

K2, Britannica.com. Retrieved 23 January 2010. https://www.britannica.com/place/K2

Keneni, G., M. Jarso, T. Wolabu and G. Dino. 2005. Extent and pattern of genetic diversity for morpho-agronomic traits in Ethiopian highland pulse landraces: 1. Field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Genet. Res. Crop Evol., 52: 539–549. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10722-003-6016-6, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-003-6016-6

Khan, A.J., S. Syed, K. Zaman and F. Ahmad. 2011. Students Perception toward Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts of Tourism in Chitral, Pakistan. J. Int. Acad. Res., 11(1). https://www.academia.edu/11648574/Students_Perception_toward_Social_Economic_and_Environmental_Impacts_of_Tourism_in_Chitral_-_Pakistan

Krasteva, L., V. Sevov, P. Kicheva, D. Shamov, M. Sabeva, S. Neykov, Z. Popova and I. Lozanov. 2002. Local Plant Genetic Resources in Bulgaria ON-Farm conservation. Sci. Sess. Jubilee, 120 years Agric. Sci. Sadovo, Inst. Plant Genet. Resour., 1: 57-63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317167407_Preservation_of_local_grain_legume_species_for_food_in_Bulgaria

Kruskal, W.H. and W.A. Wallis. 1952. Use of ranks in one-criterion analysis of variance. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 47: 583–621. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2280779, https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441

Maxted, N., M.E. Dulloo, B.V. Ford-Lloyd, L. Frese, J. Iriondo and M.A.A. Pinheiro de Car-valho. 2011. Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Securing the Diversity of Crop Wild Relatives and Landraces. CABI, Wallingford, UK. Mercati. https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/41f41f19-4613-498d-9021-f4b47949c82c/Interactions_between_climate_change_agriculture_and_between_biodiversity_agriculture_-_Annexes.pdf?v=63664509831

Nisar, M., A. Ghafoor and M.R. Khan. 2011. Phenotypic Variation in the Agronomic and Morphological Traits of Pisum sativum L. Germplasm obtained from different parts of the World. Russian J. Genet., 47(1): 19–25. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S102279541012104X, https://doi.org/10.1134/S102279541012104X

Pfeiffer, J.M., S. Dun, B. Mulawarman and K.J. Rice. 2006. Bio-cultural diversity in traditional rice-based agro ecosystems: indigenous research and conservation of mavo (Oryza sativa L.) upland rice landraces of eastern Indonesia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kevin_Rice3/publication/226621249_Biocultural_diversity_in_traditional_rice-based_agroecosystems_indigenous_research_and_conservation_of_mavo_(Oryza_sativa_L.)_upland_rice_landraces_of_eastern_Indonesia/links/00b495237524e54b68000000

Rodino, A.P., A.B. Monteagudo, A.M. De Ron and M. Santalla. 2009. Ancestral landraces of common bean from the South of Europe and their agronomical value for breeding programs. Crop Sci., 49: 2087-2099. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2008.07.0427

Sher, K., M. Nisar and M. Subhan. 2019. PCR based genetic diversity in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) landraces collected from Malakand, Division, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Sarhad J. Agric., 35(2): 579-586. https://researcherslinks.com/current-issues/PCR-Based-Genetic-Diversity-in-Common-Bean-Phaseolus-vulgaris-Landraces-Collected-from-Malakand-Division-Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa-Pakistan/14/1/2254/html, https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2019/35.2.579.586

Stoilova, T., G. Pereira, M.M. Tavares de souse and V. Carnide. 2005. Diversity in common bean landraces (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from Bulgaria and Portugal. J. Cent. Eur. Agric., 6(4): 443–448. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/51d2/d5bb35baf33c522ec1996df2cff71287d634.pdf

Vignolini, C.A., P.N. Galardi, N. Mulinacci, S. Benedettelli and D. Hamle. 2004. Germplasm characterization of zolfino landraces (Phaseolus vulgaris L) by flavonoid content. J. Agric. Food Chem., 52: 3838-3842. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jf0307402, https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0307402

Weiss, R.F. and V. Fintelmann. 2000. Herbal Medicine. 2nd edition. Pub. Thieme, Stuttgart, New Cork, USA, 128-129. https://www.worldcat.org/title/herbal-medicine/oclc/44040405

Wright, E.M. and J.D. Kelly. 2011. Mapping QTL for seed yield and canning quality following processing of black bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Euphytica, 179: 471–484. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227161745_Mapping_QTL_for_seed_yield_and_canning_quality_following_processing_of_black_bean_Phaseolus_vulgaris_L, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-011-0369-2

Zeven, A.C., 1997. The introduction of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L) into Western Europe and the phenotypic variation of dry beans collected in the Netherlands in 1946. Euphytica, 94: 319–328. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1002940220241, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002940220241