Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tnzc20

Download by: [88.232.233.26] Date: 20 September 2015, At: 08:39

New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science

ISSN: 0114-0671 (Print) 1175-8783 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnzc20

Diversity and use of pinto bean (Phaseolusvulgaris) populations from Samsun, Turkey

Ahmet Balkaya & Ahmet Ergün

To cite this article: Ahmet Balkaya & Ahmet Ergün (2008) Diversity and use of pinto bean(Phaseolus vulgaris) populations from Samsun, Turkey, New Zealand Journal of Crop andHorticultural Science, 36:3, 189-197, DOI: 10.1080/01140670809510235

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01140670809510235

Published online: 19 Feb 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 127

View related articles

New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 2008, Vol. 36: 189-1970014-0671/08/3603-0189 © The Royal Society of New Zealand 2008

189

Diversity and use of pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) populationsfrom Samsun, Turkey

AhmET BAlkAyA

AhmET ERgüNDepartment of horticultureFaculty of AgricultureUniversity of Ondokuz MayisSamsun, Turkeyemail: abalkaya@omu.edu.tr

Abstract In the north of Turkey, pinto bean(Phaseolus vulgaris) is one of the most importantcrops. Forty-four analysed populations of pinto beanwere collected from Samsun province in northernTurkey. The variability of the 44 self-pollinatedpopulations of pinto bean was evaluated onmorphological, reproductive, and agronomical traitsduring 2003-2004. Individual data for 24 traits (14quantitative and 10 qualitative) related to earlinessand yield, and plant, pod, and seed structure wereanalysed using Principal Component (PC) analysiswhich revealed differences among the populations.The PC analysis showed that the first four PC axesexplained 83.3% of the total multivariate variation.Characters with high coefficients in the first PC(earliness and yield traits), and the second PC (podlength, pod width, and pod form) were considered themost important since these axes explain nearly halfof the total variation. Data were subjected to clusteranalysis and several groups were identified withmost of the populations. Clustered into six groups, adendrogram was prepared to evaluate morphologicaldifferences among populations. It revealed highvariation. The results provide information on thediversity and breeding values of Turkish pinto beangermplasm.

Keywords pinto bean; genetic resources;variability; cluster; Turkey

H07119; Online publication date 11 August 2008Received 12 November 2007; accepted 5 May 2008

INTRODUCTION

In developed countries, common bean includes freshpod (French bean) and fresh grain; in developingcountries, fresh pods are used (Escribano et al.1997). Based on archaeological evidence fromPeru and the south-western United States in the late19th century, it was concluded that common beanoriginated from the New World; with two centresof origin—Andean and mesoamerican (gepts &Debouck 1993). Subsequently, common bean wasintroduced into other regions of the world. Itsintroduction into Europe could have produced abottleneck, probably because few seed types camefrom the Americas carried by sailors and traders. Thespecies later experienced secondary diversification insouthern Europe (Santalla et al. 2002) that enlargedgenetic diversity. It is unclear when common beanwas first grown in Turkey, but it was c. 200 yearsago (Bayraktar 1981; günay 1992).

Total production of vegetable legumes in Turkeyin 2003 was 709000 t. Snap bean (Phaseolusvulgaris l . ) is the most important cultivated legumein Turkey with 76.9% of production. Pinto bean hasa 7.3% share with 52000t annually (Anon. 2005a).In Turkey, the pinto bean crop is important and themajor producing regions are located in the north(Bursa (6109 t) and Samsun provinces (5061 t),respectively).

In Turkey, common bean landraces are stillimportant genetic resources which are directly usedby farmers on a small scale (Balkaya et al. 1999).Farmers have maintained local populations andexchanged seeds with surrounding areas, mainly inlocal markets. In Turkey, consumers tend to consumethe red beans as dry seed. however, fresh seedconsumption is possible in some rural parts of Turkey.These bean populations are therefore a valuablegermplasm source, well-adapted to the pedoclimaticconditions of restricted geographical areas. Recently,the old bean landraces have progressively beenreplaced with improved new cultivars, whichensure higher yields and incomes, and meet therequirements of processors and consumers (Balkaya

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.2

32.2

33.2

6] a

t 08:

39 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

190 New Zealand Journal of Crop and horticultural Science, 2008, Vol. 36

& Ergün 2007). Unfortunately, there has been nocomprehensive programme for the collection andcharacterisation of these pinto bean genetic resourcesin the Samsun region and there are no reportedstudies (yanmaz 2002). Consequently, there is aneed to collect, characterise, and evaluate remnantlocal bean populations before they disappear.

Knowledge of the extent of genetic diversity, andidentification, differentiation, and characterisation ofgenotypes and populations, respectively, provides aninformation tool for the detection of duplicates inthe collection, their effective extension, and bettercharacterisation and use in breeding (hornakovaet al. 2003). To date, several traits have beenused for evaluation of plant diversity. Objectivedescriptors based on morpho-agronomic charactersare considered reliable traits to verify or assessgenetic distance or conformity among populations(hunter 1993).These traits have been commonlyused for cultivar description and identification bythe International Union for the Protection of NewVarieties of Plants (UPOV) (Anon. 1998). Diversitypresent in a group of populations can be displayedby means of cluster analysis and it shows similarityand differences among populations (Escribano et al.1991; Rodino et al. 2001; Cartea et al. 2002).

The collection, evaluation, and characterisation ofTurkish pinto bean germplasm is a field of interestand is of economical and ecological importance.Therefore, the objective of this research was toevaluate variation in traits affecting agronomic valuesand to define some characteristics of local pinto beanpopulations collected in Samsun, Turkey.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-four pinto bean populations were collectedfrom the Samsun province, northern Turkey wheretraditional farming is still common. The geneticmaterial consisted of landraces and native populationsmaintained by farmers for generations and representeddifferent bean types grown in Samsun. All populationsused in this study were collected before and duringharvest between July 2002 and October 2002. Thematerial was classified as climbing (39 populations)and semi-climbing (5 populations) (Table 1) and ismaintained in the germplasm collection at Facultyof Agriculture, Ondokuz mayis University (Balkaya&Karaağaç2005).

The field component of this study was carried out inCarsamba county, Samsun province in 2003 and 2004.This province is situated in the Black Sea region of

Turkey and has a humid climate with an annual averagerelative humidity of 72.0% and rainfall of c. 708 mm(Anon. 2005b). The soil of the experimental area wasa sandy loam with a ph of 6.8.

The seed of all populations was sown on 6 may2003 and 10 may 2004. The distance between rowsof climbing beans was 0.80 m and with 0.40 mbetween plants in the row. Semi-climbing beans weresown at 0.50 m × 0.30 m spacings. All populationswere sown in 2-row plots in a randomised completeblock design with three replicates of 20 plants perreplicate. Fertilisation and weed control followedstandard cultural practices.

CharacterisationFresh pods were harvested during the variety-specificperiod, based on the UPOV descriptors listed below.harvesting began in mid July and lasted until the endof September each year. The selected characters weredescribed according to the UPOV Phaseolus vulgarisdescriptors list, characteristics of the genetic materialand previous field observations (Table 2) (Anon.1998). Pod characteristic analyses were carried outon 10 pods harvested from each of population 60plants. Pod dimensions (suture, stringiness, length,width, thickness, length/width ratio (which indicatespod shape)) were measured. Pod weight (in g, wasthe mean of a sample of 20 pods), when pods wereat the optimal maturity stage for fresh consumption.To obtain a better description of the pinto beanpopulations—plant height, flower colour, seed coatcolour, and seed dimensions were also recorded.

Data analysisStatistical analysis of the data was performed usingthe statistical package SPSS (11.0 for Windows).Principal component (PC) transformation was cutwhere Eigen-values exceeded one. This procedurereduced the dimensionality of the initial correlationmatrix by producing six uncorrelated PC axes(Düzyaman 2005).

For a better overview of diversity in the localpopulations, cluster analysis was also used.hierarchical cluster analyses were performed usingWard's criterion, minimising the total sum of squareddistances of objects to cluster centres. Ward'scriterion was preferred because it tends to producecompact clusters, which is desirable (Zewdie &Zeven 1997). Cluster analysis was conducted onsimilarity estimates using the unweighted pair-groupmethod with arithmetic average (UPgmA), fromwhich a dendrogram representing the relationshipamong the accessions was obtained (Rohlf 1993).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.2

32.2

33.2

6] a

t 08:

39 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Balkaya & Ergün—Diversity and use of pinto bean

RESULTS

A global approach to PC indicated that the variationin the landraces appears to be organised in differentways (Casquero et. al. 2006). In this study, PC ofpinto bean populations was performed and consideredagronomic, pod and seed traits, which included14 quantitative and 10 qualitative variables. Thefirst PC axis accounted for 28.1% of the variation,

191

whereas the second, third, and fourth axes accountedfor 24.0%, 17.1%, and 14.1%, respectively (Table3). The first four PC axes explained 83.3% of thevariation, suggesting considerable diversity amongthe characters.

Balkaya (1999) reported that days to flowering,flower colour, harvest time, pod length, pod width,pod stringiness, and pod yield were the most importantdescriptors of variation among French and snap

Table 1 Accession number and data on the collection site of the pinto bean(Phaseolus vulgaris) populations studied.

Code

G1G2G3G4G5G6G7G8G9G10G11G12G13G14G15G16G17G18G19G20G21G22G23G24G25G26G27G28G29G30G31G32G33G34G35G36G37G38G39G40G41G42G43G44

Accession no.

55ÇA0155ÇA0255ÇA0355ÇA0455ÇA0555ÇA0655ÇA0755ÇA0855ÇA0955ÇA1055ÇA1155ÇA1255ÇA1355ÇA1455ÇA1555ÇA1655ÇA1755ÇA1855ÇA1955ÇA2055ÇA2155ÇA2255ÇA2355ÇA2455ÇA3055ÇA4055ÇA4155ÇA4255TE0155TE0255TE0355TE0455TE0555TE0655TE0755TE0855TE0955TE1055TE1155TE1255TE1355TE1455TE1555TE20

Collection site/village

Çarşamba/ ÇaltiÇarşamba/MerkezÇarşamba/BafracaliÇarşamba/BafracaliÇarşamba/BafracaliÇarşamba/KaramustafaliÇarşamba/BafracaliÇarşamba/BafracaliÇarşamba/MerkezÇarşamba/MerkezÇarşamba/MerkezÇarşamba/MerkezÇarşamba/MerkezÇarşamba/MerkezÇarşamba/MerkezÇarşamba/MerkezÇarşamba/MerkezÇarşamba/MerkezÇarşamba/KemerÇarşamba/MerkezÇarşamba/MerkezÇarşamba/ÇelikliÇarşamba/BafracaliÇarşamba/SaraçliÇarşamba/KumÇarşamba/ÇaltiÇarşamba/ÇaltiÇarşamba/MelikTerme/Hüseyin MescitTerme/Uzun GaziTerme/GeçmişTerme/GeçmişTerme/GeçmişTerme/GeçmişTerme/Hüseyin MescitTerme/Sari HasanTerme/Hüseyin MescitTerme/Hüseyin MescitTerme/Hüseyin MescitTerme/Sari HasanTerme/GeçmişTerme/GeçmişTerme/GeçmişTerme/Uzun Gazi

growth habit

ClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingSemi-climbingSemi-climbingSemi-climbingSemi-climbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingClimbingSemi-climbing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.2

32.2

33.2

6] a

t 08:

39 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

192 New Zealand Journal of Crop and horticultural Science, 2008, Vol. 36

bean populations in the Black Sea region of Turkey. 1. The means and standard deviations of the traitsEarliness and yield traits for pod yield plant–1, pod for each cluster are given in Table 4.number plant–1, and average pod weight had higher Among the six different groups, Group III wascoefficients on the first PC axis than on the others. divided into seven subgroups, Group H into fiveAlong the second PC axis were variation for pod subgroups, and groups I, IV, and VI into fourlength, pod width, and pod form. The third PC axis subgroups. group V did not show differentialcovered variation for pod wall fibre and crispness, internal characteristics (Fig. 1). The six groups andand the fourth PC axis variation in longitudinal pod 25 subgroups could be considered to be distinctshape, seed thickness, and seed width. Characters germplasm pools.with high coefficients in the first and the second The major clusters can be summarised as follows:PCs should be considered more important since group I included eight genotypes collected fromthese axes explain nearly half of the total variation. Carsambaprovince, exceptforG43 (Terme province).Earlier results indicated that the populations could Plants in this group were harvested between 96 andbe distinguished by earliness and pod yield traits, 128 days and are classified as late. All populationsboth of which had the highest coefficients on the had a climbing habit (average 205.3 cm) (Tablefirst PC axis. 4). Pod stringiness greatly influences consumer

Cluster analysis grouped the populations into six appeal. Consumers prefer stringless pods for freshclusters. Differences among pinto bean populations, consumption (Balkaya & Odabaş 2004). In this study,based on similarity of agronomic characters, using all bean populations had little string or stringless podsthe UPgmA clustering algorithm are shown in Fig. (Table 4). For fresh seed consumption, red flecked

Table 2 Traits used in pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) population characterisation.

(1) growth habit (1, dwarf; 2, semi-climbing; 3, climbing)(2) Plant height (cm)Flower(3) Size of bracteole (mm)(4) Flower colour (1, white; 2, lilac; 3, white with lilac edge; 4, dark lilac; 5, carmine red; 6, purple)Pod(5) Pod length (cm)(6) Pod width (cm)(7) Pod thickness (mm)(8) Pod longitiudunal section (1, long-round; 2, long-flat; 3, medium-round; 4, medium-flat; 5, short round; 6, shortflat)(9) Pod cross-section (1, very flat; 2, pear-shaped; 3, round elliptic; 4, figure of eight)(10) Pod suture string (1, stringy; 2, few strings; 3, stringless)(11) Pod colour (1, light green; 2, green; 3, dark green)(12) Pod fleck colour (1, red; 2, purple; 3, black)(13) Pod wall fibre (1, rough; 2, slightly rough; 3, smooth)(14) Crispness (1, present; 2, absent)(15) Pod curvature (1, straight; 2, slightly curved; 3, curved, 4, recurving)(16) Pod beak form (1, angular; 2, plane)Seed(17) Seed length (mm)(18) Seed width (mm)(19) Seed thickness (mm)(20) Seed testa colour (1, cream; 2, cream red; 3, cream black; 4, cream purple; 5, red; 6, black)(21) Seed shape (1, round; 2, oval; 3, elliptical; 4, cylindrical; 5, kidney shaped; 6, truncate fastigiated)(22) 100 seed weight (g)(23) Seed number/podEarliness and yield traits(24) Earliness (days)(25) Pod number/plant(26) Total pod weight (g)/plant(27) Average pod weight (g)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.2

32.2

33.2

6] a

t 08:

39 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Balkaya & Ergün—Diversity and use of pinto bean 193

pods are preferred. Total pod weight in this groupwas 1046 g plant–1. Average pod weight (16.0 g)was higher than in all the other groups. Seed lengthwas 13.2 mm. This was lower than in all the othergroups.

Group H consisted of nine populations mainlyfrom Terme province. Flower colours were lilac topurple. Pod shape in this group was long, mediumand short round. Pod width of this group was thegreatest of all the groups (Table 4). All populationshad straight or slightly curved pods. Time to maturityfor harvest was 100-122 days.

There were 13 populations in group III. Bracteolesize in this group was the largest (5.8 mm) of allgroups (Table 4). Pod length was 20.1 cm. Thisvalue was the longest. Pod shape ranged frommedium to large and the beans were relatively flat.All populations had stringless pods. In addition, thisgroup had the lowest mean values for pods plant–1

and total pod weight plant–1 (Table 4). Beans from

this group were not selected for pinto bean breedingbecause their yields were very low (Balkaya & Ergün2007). Seeds were red coloured and large.

Group IV included six genotypes. Pods of beans,in this group were medium-flat and short-flat, andpod colour was tones of light green (Table 4). Allbeans were straight or slightly curved. Pod fleckcolours were red and black tones. harvest was laterin some genotypes of this group than in other groups(Table 4). The majority of the seed was of mediumsize.

There was only one population (55ÇA18) inGroup V. It was climbing with purple flowers. Podswere dark green and flecked with red. Seeds werelarge and oval, and the 100 seed weight was thehighest in all groups (Table 4). It was harvested onday 142 and was classified as late.

group VI included seven populations which weremostly semi-climbing. Pod length was the least ofall groups, whereas pod thickness was the highest

Table 3 Principal component (PC) analysis of characters associated with 44 pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)populations. Proportions of variations are associated with first four PC axes, which correspond to Eigenvalues greaterthan 1. Characters with high coefficients in the PC axes should be considered more important, thus eigen vectors above0.60 are shown in bold.

EigenvaluesExplained proportion of variation (%)Cumulative proportion of variation (%)

CharacterPlant heightFlower colourSize of bracteolePod lengthPod widthPod thicknessPod longitiudunal sectionPod cross-sectionPod suture stringPod colourPod fleck colourPod wall fibreCrispnessPod curvaturePod beak formSeed lengthSeed widthSeed thickness100 seed weightNo. of seeds/podEarlinessPod number/plantTotal pod weightAverage fresh pod weight

1

3.428528.128.1

-0.31-0.03-0.38-0.29

0.09-0.03-0.30

0.04-0.08

0.03-0.18-0.02-0.01

0.25-0.00-0.28-0.01-0.17-0.39

0.170.640.800.830.81

PCa2

2.782424.052.1

axis3

1.586417.169.2

Eigen vectors0.57

-0.070.210.750.75

-0.430.69

-0.060.020.120.01

-0.120.13

-0.110.000.420.40

-0.160.40

-0.72-0.59-0.41-0.02

0.13

0.11-0.47-0.37-0.33-0.06-0.36-0.37-0.34-0.29-0.31-0.55

0.600.50

-0.540.00

-0.590.110.26

-0.14-0.25

0.010.03

-0.040.03

4

1.243014.183.3

0.48-0.24

0.15-0.09-0.002-0.03

0.070.630.120.360.360.02

-0.03-0.36-0.00

0.160.600.670.48

-0.11-0.34-0.22-0.23-0.10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.2

32.2

33.2

6] a

t 08:

39 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

194 New Zealand Journal of Crop and horticultural Science, 2008, Vol. 36

Fig. 1 Genetic grouping of pinto bean (Phaseolus vul-garis) by cluster analysis.

(Table 4). Pod shape in this group was medium-flatand short-flat and pod colour was green tones. Podswere stringless and seeds were small and coloured.This group had the highest number of pod plant–1

and total pod weight plant–1 (Table 4). Time toharvest maturity was 57 to 73 days and the groupwas classified as early. This group was promisingfor breeding studies.

DISCUSSION

Turkey is a centre of origin of many plant species,and/or diversity of several crop plants, Turkey isendowed with a rich diversity of plant families (163),genera (1225), and species (9000) (Tan 1996; Özgenet al. 2000). In Turkey, green beans are the mostimportant member of the family leguminosae forhuman consumption. Beans are cultivated throughoutTurkey for both fresh and dry consumption.

The gene pool is considered a valuable initialresource for plant breeding because it contains co-adapted gene complexes with tolerance or adaptationto diseases and specific ecological conditions, andmany plant species (Harlan 1975). To be usefulfor plant breeders, genetic resources must becharacterised by morphological and agronomic traits(martins et al. 2006). Consequently, there is a needto collect, characterise, and evaluate remnant localpopulations before they disappear. however, there isa large information gap with regard to the collection,classification, and evaluation of Turkish geneticresources (Balkaya & yanmaz 2001).The clusteranalysis, reported here, differentiates genotypes onthe basis of similarity and thus provides a hierarchicalclassification (Gil & Ron 1992; Balkaya et al. 2005).Several differences among pinto bean populationswere observed for most of the agronomic charactersstudied (Balkaya 1999; Balkaya & Ergün 2007). Theclustering of pinto bean populations from Samsunprovince, Turkey on a dendrogram into six separategroups resulted from their different morphologyand special characteristics. This work has identifiedthe relationship between major pinto bean groupsin Samsun province, in the Black Sea region ofnorthern Turkey. No association was observed ofclusters within the collection zone. This absence ofassociation may be a result of continuous consciousand unconscious seed transport by humans. Second,it may be a result of previous selection for differentuses (Balkaya & yanmaz 1999) and local adaptationto a range of environments.

knowledge of the variation in a cultivatedspecies and its distribution pattern is important fordevelopment of breeding programmes (gil & Ron1992). There was low diversity of growth habitamong all populations. All populations had a climbinghabit, with the exception of populations 55ÇA30,55ÇA40, 55ÇA41, 55ÇA42, and 55TE20, whichwere semi-climbing. Plant heights of near 200 cmare frequent in the collection. Because climbing habitwas dominant in most populations (Balkaya 1999), itcould be considered to be a distinctive trait of pintobean from Samsun.

Populations in groups VI and I had very highyields. This may be important for fresh pod production.Additionally, the populations of group VI wereremarkable for earliness (Table 4). The only populationfrom Group V, 55ÇA18, because of unusual lengthand width of seeds and a high 100 seed weight, mightbe derived from commercial seed, produced throughcrosses in a breeding programme, in which charactersfrom different gene pools were combined.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.2

32.2

33.2

6] a

t 08:

39 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Balkaya & Ergün—Diversity and use of pinto bean 195

Balkaya & Ergün (2007) determined possibleuses pinto bean under the ecological conditions ofSamsun. For fresh pod production they reported thatG7 (55ÇA07), G15 (55ÇA15), and G43 (55TE15)may be preferred by consumers because of theirstraight, flat, large, stringless pods. However, G44(55TE20), with short pods, was more productive.Lines G1 (55ÇA01), G5 (55ÇA05), G15 (55ÇA15),and G43 (55TE15) were promising genotypes forfresh seed pod improvement and breeding. Thesegenotypes would require further evaluation inreplicated trials in contrasting environments toidentify superior genotypes.

Studies using morphological and molecularmethods have shown that bean accessions cannotbe reliably classified solely on morphological traits.Some researchers have suggested that the use ofmorphological traits should be complementedwith more accurate techniques to achieve reliableevaluation and characterisation of species diversity(Escribano et al. 1997; galvan et al. 2006).Further, in recent years successful results could

be obtained using DNA markers and moleculartechniques for determination of genetic traits forbean improvement. Tohme et al. (1996), Alvarezet al. (1998), Sicard et al. (2005), and Galvan et al.(2006) analysed diversity among common beans bymolecular tools.

In conclusion, an analysis of morphological,agronomic and seed traits showed that geneticvariation was relatively high among the pinto beanpopulations sampled. Thus, different selectionpressure seems to have occurred in several regionsof Samsun province. The potential use of Turkey'spinto bean genotypes as genetic resources in breedingprogrammes was highlighted for further investigation.The 44 pinto bean genotypes were classified into sixgroups and the number of populations per groupvaried considerably. Clusters, obtained in this study,may provide a basis for further study, and the resultsare a reference for further evaluation of pinto beangenetic resources. This study may also help toidentify poorly described pinto bean populations inTurkish seed genes.

Table 4 Mean trait values used in pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) group identification.

Trait

(1) growth habit(2) Plant height (cm)(3) Bracteole size (mm)(4) Flower colour(5) Pod length (cm)(6) Pod width (cm)(7) Pod thickness (mm)(8) Pod longitiudunal section(9) Pod cross-section(10) Pod suture string(11) Pod colour(12) Pod fleck colour(13) Pod wall fibre(14) Crispness(15) Pod curvature(16) Pod beak form(17) Seed length (mm)(18) Seed width (mm)(19) Seed thickness (mm)(20) Seed testa colour(21) Seed shape(22) 100 seed weight (g)(23) Seed number/pod(24) Earliness (days)(25) Pod number/plant(26) Total pod weight (g)/plant

I

3205.3±16.6

4.8±0.11,2

19.4±1.31.5±0.26.1±0.7

1,31

2,32

1,221

1,21

13.2±0.99.4±0.47.3±0.7

2,31,3

59.7±7.46.8±0.496-128

65.6±13.51046.9±66.0

(27) Average pod weight (g)/plant 16.0

n3

183.6±20.85.6±0.1

2,619.4±1.41.7±0.36.7±0.9

1,3,52,32,31,21,21111

13.8±1.09.3±0.56.9±0.6

3,21,2,3

60.2±8.05.6±0.4100-122

73.3±22.0870.7±54.0

11.9

group

m3

182.3±13.65.8±0.2

2,320.1±2.01.6±0.46.5±0.2

2,42,33

2,31,21,21

1,2,31

16.4±0.79.7±0.67.2±0.8

3,22,3,4

66.1±5.06.0±0.680-124

22.9±6.8303.3±48.5

13.2

IV

3172.4±27.4

5.1±0.32,3

16.7±1.61.4±0.36.0±0.6

4,62,32,32

1,31,21

1,21

14.4±1.09.1±0.67.3±0.6

31,3,4

55.2±6.55.7±0.588-136

50.6±9.6491.8±62.8

9.7

V

3191.2±18.4

5.2±0.16

16.3±0.41.4±0.26.7±0.9

3313121

1,21

18.5±1.110.4±0.78.3±0.5

32

70.1±11.57.2±1.3

14236.0±10.2

355.0±28.59.9

VI

2,3122.7±10.8

4.6±0.21,3,6

14.7±1.11.4±0.36.8±0.5

4,62,3321

1,21

2,31

13.7±0.88.1±0.66.8±0.6

21,2

45.4±8.44.6±0.657-73

201.9±25.11426.0±78.6

7.1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.2

32.2

33.2

6] a

t 08:

39 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

196 New Zealand Journal of Crop and horticultural Science, 2008, Vol. 36

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Ondokuz mayis University Research Foundation(Z-405) for financial support.

REFERENCES

Alvarez MT, Saenz de Miera LE, Perez de la Vega M 1998.Genetic variation in common bean and runnerbean of the Northern meseta in Spain. GeneticResources and Crop Evolution 45: 243-251.

Anonymous 1998. Descriptors for French bean. Guidelinesfor the conduct tests for distinctness, homogeneityand stability of new varieties of plants. Tarimve Köyişleri Bakanliği Tohumluk Tescil veSertifikasyon Merkezi Müdürlüşü. (In Turkish.)

Anonymous 2005a. Agricultural Structure (Production,Price, Value) 2003. Publication No. 2949. Ankara,Turkey.

Anonymous 2005b. Turkish State Meteorological ServiceRecords of Samsun Province, Turkey.

Balkaya A 1999. A research on collection of geneticresources, characterization of green bean(Phaseolus vulgaris l . ) and selection of suitabletypes for fresh consumption in the Black SeaRegion. (In Turkish). Unpublished PhD thesis,University of Ondokuz Mayis, Turkey.

Balkaya A, Ergün A 2007. Determination of superior pintobean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. Pinto) genotypesby selection under the ecological conditions ofSamsun Province in Turkey. Turkish Journal ofAgriculture and Forestry 31(5): 335-347.

Balkaya A, Karaağaç O 2005. Vegetable genetic resourcesof Turkey. Journal of Vegetable Science 11(4):81-102.

Balkaya A, Odabaş S 2004. Determining the effects ofsowing times on earliness, yield and some qualitycharacteristics in pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgarisl .) growing under Samsun ecological conditions.Bahçe Dergisi 33(1-2): 7-15. (In Turkish.)

Balkaya A, Yanmaz R 2001. Conservation facilities ofplant genetic resources and working systems ofseed gene banks. Ekoloji Çevre Dergisi 39(1):25-30. (In Turkish.)

Balkaya A, Yanmaz R 1999. The promising green bean(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars candidatedetermined by pedigree selection method inthe Black Sea region. III. Turkish horticulturalCongress, 14-17 September, Ankara. (InTurkish.)

Balkaya A, Yanmaz R, Apaydin A, Kar H 2005.morphological characterization of the white headcabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata subvar.alba) populations in Turkey. New Zealand Journalof Crop and horticultural Science 33: 333-341.

Balkaya A, Yanmaz R, Bozoğlu H, Gülümser A 1999.Determination of bean growing situation ofSamsun. The Black Sea Region AgricultureSymposium 1: 51-62. (In Turkish.)

Bayraktar k 1981. Vegetable growing. Vol. III. Seedproduction of vegetables. Ege Ziraat FakültesiYayinlari No. 244. İzmir, Turkey.

Cartea ME, Picoaga A, Soengas P, Ordas A 2002.Morphological characterization of kale populationsfrom north-western Spain. Euphytica 129:25-32.

Casquero PA, Lema M, Santalla M, De Ron Am 2006.Performance of common bean (Phaseolus vulgarisL.) landraces from Spain in the Atlantic andMediterranean environments. Genetic Resourcesand Crop Evolution 53: 1021-1032.

Düzyaman E 2005. Phenotypic diversity within a collectionof distinct okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) cultivarsderived from Turkish land races. Genetic Resourcesand Crop Evolution. 52: 1019-1030.

Escribano MR, Ron AM, Santalla M, Ferreira JJ 1991.Taxonomical relationship among common beanpopulations from northern Spain. Annual AulaDei 20(3–4): 17-27.

Escribano MR, Santalla M, Ron AM 1997. geneticdiversity in pod and seed quality traits of commonbean populations from northwestern Spain.Euphytica 93: 71-81.

Galvan MZ, Menendez-Sevillano MC, De Ron AM,Santalla M, Balatti PA 2006. Genetic diversityamong wild common beans from northwesternArgentina based on morpho-agronomic and RAPDdata. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 53:891-900.

Gepts P, Debouck D 1993. Origin, domestication, andevolution of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgarisL.). In: Van Schoonhoven A, Voysest O ed.Common beans: research for crop improvement.CAB International, International Centre forTropical Agriculture (CIAT), Antony Rowe ltd,Chippenham. Pp. 7-53.

Gil J, Ron AM 1992. Variation in Phaseolus vulgaris in theNorthwest of the Iberian Peninsula. Plant Breeding109: 313-319.

Günay A 1992. Special vegetable growing. Vol. 4. Ankara,Turkey. (In Turkish.)

Harlan JR 1975. Our vanishing genetic resources. Science188: 619-621.

Hornakova O, Zavodna M, Zakova M, Kraic J, DebreF 2003. Diversity of common bean landracescollected in the western and eastern Carpatien.Czech Journal of genetics and Plant Breeding39(3): 73-83.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.2

32.2

33.2

6] a

t 08:

39 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Balkaya & Ergün—Diversity and use of pinto bean 197

Hunter BR 1993. Science based identification of plantgenetic material. CSSA, Intellectual PropertyRights: protection of plant materials. SpecialPublication No. 21. Pp. 93-99.

Martins SR, Vences FJ, Miera l E , Barroso MR, Carnide V2006. RAPD analysis of genetic diversity amongand within Portuguese landraces of commonwhite bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). ScientiaHorticulturae 108: 133-142.

Özgen M, Adak MS, Söylemezoğlu G, Ulukan H 2000.The preservation of plant genetic resources andlatest approaches of their usages. 5th TurkishAgriculture Engineering Congress, 17-21 January2000, Ankara, Turkey. (In Turkish.)

Rodino AP, Santalla m, montero I, Casquero PA, De RonAm 2001. Diversity of common bean (Phaseolusvulgaris l .) germplasm from Portugal. geneticResources and Crop Evolution 48: 409-417.

Rohlf FJ 1993. Numerical Taxonomy and MultivariateAnalysis System. Exeter Software, Department ofEcology and Evolution, State University of NewYork, United States.

Santalla M, Rodino AP, De Ron AM 2002. Allozymeevidence supporting southwestern Europe as asecondary center of genetic diversity for commonbean. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 104:934-944.

Sicard D, Nanni L, Porfiri O, Bulfon D, Papa R 2005.Genetic diversity of Phaseolus vulgaris L. andP. coccineous L. landraces in central Italy. PlantBreeding 124: 464-472.

Tan A 1996. Turkey: country report to the FAO internationaltechnical conference on plant genetic resources.Leipzig, Germany. 46 p.

Tohme J, Gonzalez DO, Beebe S, Duque MC 1996.AFLP analysis of gene pools of a wild bean corecollection. Crop Science 36: 1375-1384.

Yanmaz R 2002. The Vegetable Bibliography of Turkey(1923-1999). 391 p. (In Turkish.)

Zewdie Y, Zeven AC 1997. Variation in Yugoslavianhot pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) accessions.Euphytica 97: 81-89.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

88.2

32.2

33.2

6] a

t 08:

39 2

0 Se

ptem

ber

2015