Content uploaded by Yigzaw Dessalegn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yigzaw Dessalegn on Jan 20, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Wudpecker Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 1(7), pp. 270 - 274, August 2012
Available online at http://www.wudpeckerresearchjournals.org
2012 Wudpecker Research Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Participatory varietal selection of faba bean (Vicia faba
L.) for yield and yield components in Dabat district,
Ethiopia
1
Tafere Mulualem, 1Tadesse Dessalegn, and 2Yigzaw Dessalegn
1Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
2Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Accepted 30 June 2012
Faba bean is one of the important field crops in the highlands of Ethiopia. Several improved faba bean
varieties has been released by agricultural research centers. However, farmers depend on few low
yielding local faba bean varieties. Participatory variety selection was initiated to evaluate the
performance of alternative improved faba bean varieties and select better varieties for further seed
production. The study was conducted at Dabat district at four volunteer farmers’ fields during 2010
main cropping season. Ten improved varieties were evaluated under farmers’ participatory varietal
selection. Randomized complete block design with all three replications on one farmer field as
grandmother and one replication each at three other farmers’ fields as mother trials was used.
Significant differences (p<0.05) were observed among varieties in plant height, number of pods per
plant, number of nodes per plant, number of pods per node, hundred seed weight and grain yield per
hectare. The yield ranged from 4.5 q ha-1 to 24.9 qha-1 with the grand means of 11.2 q ha-1, SELALE (24.9
qha-1), WAYU (22.0 qha-1) and DOSHA (13.16 qha-1) varieties were the top yielding varieties. Farmers’
ranked the varieties that performed well under their circumstances. Based on farmer’s evaluation and
selection plus researchers’ recommendations, DOSHA, WOLKI and WAYU varieties were found
promising under Dabat condition.
Key words: Ethiopia, faba bean, participatory, varietal selection.
INTRODUCTION
Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) is originated in the Near East
and is one of the earliest domesticated legumes after
chickpea and pea. Ethiopia is considered as the
secondary center of diversity and also one of the nine
major agro-geographical production regions of faba bean
(Asfaw Telaye et al., 1994). At present, faba bean is the
third most important cool-season food legume in the
world (Torres et al., 2006). Faba bean is used as human
food in developing countries and as animal feed in
industrialized countries. Faba bean is widely used as a
good sources of protein, starch, cellulose and minerals
(Haciseferogullari et al., 2003) for human in developing
*Corresponding author E-mail: tafere_mulualem@yahoo.com.
countries. It provides essential amino acids (particularly
lysine) that are not present in sufficient quantities in
staple cereal corps (Giller, 2001). In Ethiopia, faba bean
is the leading protein source for the rural people and
used to make various traditional dishes (Senayit and
Asrat, 1994). Moreover, it provides large cash for
producers and foreign exchange for the country (Desta
Beyene, 1988).
Ethiopia is one of the largest faba bean producing
countries in the world only second to China
(Hebblethwaite et al., 1993). Faba bean is grown as field
crop throughout the highlands and is most common in
Wayina Dega between the altitudes 1800 m.a.s.l and
2400 m.a.s.l (Asfaw Telaye, 1985). Over 90% of the total
crop land is cultivated by small scale farmers using
traditional practices. Farmers select seeds for various
271 Wudpecker J. Agric. Res.
traits and purposes, and also exchange seeds through
traditional networks (PGRC, 1995). Therefore, Ethiopian
farmers have skill, knowledge and experience on crop
variety selection and conservation. The Amhara region
has the favorable climate and potential for faba bean
production.
Crop production did not keep pace with the population
growth in Ethiopia. Among the major factors attributed to
low crop production is the unavailability of better cultivars.
Crop production under varied agro-ecological conditions
of the country would require modern varieties that fit to
diverse ecologies. The existing breeding and seed
multiplication capacity does not fully meet the critical
constraints of varieties and seeds leading to stagnated
production and decline in per capita food availability
(PGRC, 1995).
Farmers as well as Seed Producer Cooperatives
(SPCs) are highly demanding better yielding varieties to
maximize their product, and improve the livelihood of
their families. Participatory Varietal Selection (PVS) has
been proposed as an option to the problem of fitting the
crop to a multitude of both target environments and
users’ preferences (Ceccarelli et al. 1996). It is worth
mentioning that although farmer participation is often
advocated on the basis of equity, there are sound
scientific and practical reasons for farmer involvement to
increase the efficiency and the effectiveness of a
breeding program (Ceccarelli and Grando, 2002).
The present investigation was conducted with the
objectives to evaluate and select faba bean varieties for
high yield and other agronomic traits through farmer’s
participation in decision making during the selection
process.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental Materials and Design
The experiment was conducted in farmer’s field in Wokinzuria
kebele of Dabat district during 2010 main cropping season. Dabat is
located at 12° 59' 3" N and 37° 45' 54" E in Amhara National
Regional State, North Gondar Zone. It receives an average annual
rainfall of about 1100mm.The average annual maximum and
minimum temperatures are 19.9°C and 8.58°C, respectively. The
major soil type is vertisol having water logging problems. Nine
released faba bean genotypes were obtained from Holleta
Agricultural Research Center and one local check was used for the
study (Table 1). The trial was laid down in randomized complete
block design with all three replication in one farmer field as for
grandmother trial.
Other three farmer fields were planted with one replication each
considered as mother trials. Grandmother and mother trial
approach is analogous with that of mother baby trial except the
options for the baby trials are increased with more number of
varieties. Each genotype was planted in four rows of 4m row length
with 0.4m spacing between rows. The distance between blocks and
plots was 1.5m and 0.6m, respectively. DAP fertilizer was applied at
the recommended rate of 100 kg/ha. The whole DAP was applied at
sowing. Sowing was done by hand drilling at the seed rate of 40
seeds per row or 160 seeds per plot.
Data Collected
Agronomic data were collected on plot and plant basis from the
grandmother trial. Hundred seed weight (g), plant height (cm),
number of nodes per plant, number of pods per node, and number
of pods per plant, were evaluated on five randomly taken plants
from the middle two rows in each plot. Biological yield (g) for each
plot and grain yield (g) of the middle two rows in each plot was
measured and converted to quintal per hectare for analysis.
Farmers’ evaluation and selection data were collected on plot basis
from the three mother trials i.e., farmers were grouped around each
host farmer of the trials.
Data Analysis
The researchers recorded agronomic data were subjected to the
analysis of variance (Gomez and Gomez, 1984) using Statistical
Analysis Software (SAS, 1999). Farmers’ selection data were
analyzed using simple ranking method in accordance with the given
value (De Boef and Thijssen, 2007). Simple ranking is a tool often
used to identify promising varieties based on farmers’ preferences.
The ranking procedure was explained for farmer participants and
then each selection criterion was ranked from 1 to 5 (5 = very good,
4 = good, 3 = average, 2 = poor and 1 = very poor) for each variety.
Ranking was done on consensus where differences are resolved
through discussion (De Boef and Thijssen, 2007).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Agronomic traits of grandmother trial
Agronomic traits i.e., plant height, plant height to the first
node, days to flowering, days to maturity, number of
nodes per plant, number of pods per node, number of
pods per plant diseases (chocolate spot), hundred seed
weight, grain yield, and biological yield were analyzed
(Table 3). The genotypes significantly (P < 0.05) varied
for plant height. Plant height ranged from 74.0 to 104.7
cm (Table 2). WAYU was the tallest genotype (104.7 cm)
followed by SELALE (100.3 cm) and WOLKI (95.9 cm).
The shortest variety was GEBELCHO (74.0 cm).
Highly significant differences (P < 0.01) were also
observed among genotypes for days to flowering, days to
maturity and hundred seed weight. The difference in days
to flowering among genotypes ranged from 55 days
(DEGAGA) to 63 days (GEBELCHO). SELALE (61 days)
and WAYU (60 days) were the second and third late
flowering genotype, respectively. Days to maturity ranged
from 138 days (CS20DK) to 143 days (GEBELCHO) with
the grand mean of 140 days (Table 2). Early maturing
genotypes complete their life cycle in relatively shorter
period. Thus, early maturing genotypes have the
advantage or adaptable over the late once in
environments where rain begins late and ends early.
Chocolate spot was the major faba bean disease
observed and genotypes had shown significant (p<0.05)
Mulualem et al. 272
Table 1. List of faba bean varieties tested.
No
Variety name
1 DEGAGA
2 MOTI
3 GEBELCHO
4 CS 20 DK
5 DOSHA
6 WOLKI
7 HOLETTA - 2
8 WAYU
9 SELALE
10 EH99051-3
Table 2. Mean values of different agronomic traits for grandmother trial.
Genotype
CS
DF
DM
GYD
HSW
NPP
PPN
PPP
PHT
HOLETTA-2 31.6ab 57cde 139c 5.7cd 56.7d 15.3b 1.8c 7.9bc 79.3cd
DOSHA 20.0c 58bcd 140bc 13.2b 75.6ab 16.6b 2.4bc 9.7bc 95.2abc
EH99051-3 30.0ab 57de 139c 9.7bcd 83.1a 17.4b 1.6c 6.9c 84.2bcd
CS20DK 33.3a 57de 139c 7.0cd 70.8abc 16.8b 1.7c 4.7c 76.1d
WOLKI 20.0c 59bcd 140bc 11.2bc 63.6bcd 15.5b 2.1c 8.9bc 95.9abc
SELALE 28.3ab 61ab 141ab 24.9a 53.0de 19.5ab 3.0ab 17.3a 100.3ab
GEBELCHO 28.3ab 63a 143a 4.5d 81.2a 15.9b 1.8c 4.9c 74.1d
DEGAGA 25.0bc 55e 140bc 8.0bcd 60.7cd 15.4b 1.9c 12.8ab 82.7cd
WAYU 20.0c 60abc 141ab 21.9a 42.3e 23.4a 3.3a 18.4a 104.7a
MOTI 25.0bc 58cde 139c 5.4d 74.8ab 16.7b 1.7c 4.4c 76.8d
Mean
26.17 57 140 11.1 66.2 17.2 2.1 9.6 86.9
LSD
(5%)
8.03 3.12 1.74 5.54 13.21 5.04 0.91 5.80 17.57
CV (%)
17.90 3.1 0.72 28.97 11.63 17.04 24.74 35.25 11.78
CS=Chocolate spot (%), DF=Days to flowering (days), DM=Days to maturity (days), GYD=Grain yield (qh.-1), HSW=Hundred seed weight (gm),
NPP=Nodes per plant (no.), PPN=Pods per node (no.) PPP=Pods per plant (no.) PHT=Plant height (cm), LSD=Least Significant Difference,
CV=Coefficient of Variation.
Table 3. Analysis of variance for agronomic traits of grandmother trials.
Sources of
variation
d.f.
Mean squares
DF
DM
NPP
PPN
PPP
PHT
CS
HSW
GYD
Replication 2 1.23 1.03 19.84 0.46 10.50 642.42 10.83 34.33 6.62
Genotype 9 14.74** 5.36** 18.61
NS
1.007* 76.970** 371.24* 74.17* 522.17** 148.54**
Error 18 3.307 1.033 8.64 0.284 11.438 104.91 21.94 59.31 10.43
NS=Non-Significant,*=Significant at 0.05 probability level, ** = Significant at 0.01 probability level df=degree of freedom, DF=Days to flowering,
DM=Days to maturity, NPP=Nodes per plant, PPN=Pod per plant, PPP=Pods per plant, PHT=Plant height, CS=Chocolate spot, HSW=Hundred seed
weight, GYD=Grain yield.
level of variation in resistance. DOSHA, WOLKI and
WAYU were less affected (20%) by chocolate spot while
the severity was high for CS20DK, HOLETTA-2 and
EH99051-3. The season had extended rainfall and was
favorable for chocolate spot development. Hanounik
(1979) and Dereje et al. (1994) reported prolonged
rainfall is conducive for chocolate spot development
leading to complete crop loss. However, the yield
performance of DOSHA, WOLKI and WAYU was better
than local varieties under the same conditions.
Significant variation (P < 0.05) was observed among
varieties in pod number per node. Higher pod number per
node was recorded for SELALE (3) and WAYU (3.3) and
the lowest was for EH99051-3 (1) and CS20DK (1).
Varieties also showed highly significant differences (P <
0.01) in grain yield performance (Table 3). Grain yield
ranged from 4.5 q ha-1 to 24.9 qha-1 with the grand mean
of 11.1 q ha-1. SELALE (25 q ha-1), WAYU (22 q ha-1) and
273 Wudpecker J. Agric. Res.
Table 4. Sum of scores at three farmer sites for each trait, overall mean value of each selection criterion and ranking of
genotypes.
Farmer's criteria
Variety PES OAP STS NOB SS Total Mean Rank
HOLETTA-2 9 8 8 10 13 48 9.6 6
DOSHA 14 12 12 15 15 68 13.6 1
EH99051-3 11 10 8 10 8 47 9.4 7
CS20DK 8 8 7 7 13 43 8.6 8
WOLKI 13 13 15 13 12 66 13.2 2
SELALE 11 12 15 12 7 57 11.4 4
GEBELCHO 8 7 10 8 10 43 8.6 8
DEGAGA 8 8 8 10 7 41 8.2 9
WAYU 12 12 15 12 12 63 12.6 3
MOTI 13 8 8 10 15 54 10.8 5
PES=Plant Establishment, OAP=Overall Performance, STS=Stem Strength, NoB=Number of Branches, SS=Seed Size; Rating
of the performance of variety for a given criteria: 5= very good, 4= good, 3= average, 2= poor and 1 = very poor.
DOSHA (13.2 q ha-1) were the top yielding while MOTI
(5.37 q ha-1) and GEBELCHO (4.5 q ha-1) were the lowest
yielding varieties. The most commonly used varieties in the
area were CS20DK and DEGAGA which produced low
yields of 7 and 8 q ha-1, respectively. Hence, the result
clearly showed that high yielding varieties such as
SELALE, WAYU, and DOSHA could be best substitutes
than CS20DK and DEGAGA and can be introduced in
seed production and distribution.
Farmers variety evaluation and criteria
Selection was carried out at four different growth stages
by organizing a field day at each stage i.e. at vegetative,
flowering, physiological maturity, and harvesting.
Farmers’ selection criteria were plant establishment
(PES), stem strength (STS), number of branches (NOB),
overall performance (OAP) and seed size (SS). The
evaluations mean score value for each genotype ranged
from 5.6 to 9.2 (Table 4). DOSHA (9.2) scored the highest
value and the lowest was scored by DEGAGA (5.6). WOLKI
(9.0) and WAYU (8.4) were ranked second and third best
varieties by farmers, respectively. Both women and men
were participated in the selection process.
Every farmer’s group, comprising women and men,
made discussion during selection. The results obtained
from farmers’ evaluation in the three mother trials are
presented in Table 4. However, different varieties were
selected by farmers at different vegetative stages of the
plant due to their performances in the field at selection
time or stage. However, including post harvest criteria,
best varieties namely DOSHA, WOLKI and WAYU were
selected as top ranking in all groups as final selections or
adapted varieties. The same varieties had better
performance and found to be promising from the analysis
of researchers’ collected data. The study showed that
participatory approaches played a significance role which
is equivalent with conventional plant breeding (http://
siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/W
DR_00_book.pdf).
According to Joshi et al., (2001) varieties developed for
specific niches may be capable of spreading to other
distant and different environments; in many cases they
are unlikely to spread as readily as varieties that have
specifically been developed to have wide adaptation. The
present study also demonstrated this.
Farmers and the researcher used different parameters
and methods to evaluate the tested genotypes. It is
obvious that farmers have demonstrated the ability to
select well-adapted and preferred varieties under their
circumstances using their own criteria. A range of
improved varieties should be available for selection under
their participation. Researchers must consider farmers
selection traits in their varietal development such as seed
yield, seed size and overall field performance. Generally,
the variety should have high yield potential, tolerance to
biotic and abiotic stresses and have good marketability
and consumer preferences.
Conclusion
Participatory varietal selection is the selection by which
farmers evaluate finished or near-finished products from
plant breeding programs on their own farms. Once
identified, the seed of farmer-preferred cultivars needs to
be rapidly multiplied and cost-effectively supplied to
farmers. SELALE, WAYU, DOSHA, and WOLKI gave the
highest grain yield and showed better performance in
other agronomic traits than a local check (CS20DK) in the
present study. Thus, these varieties are found to be well
adapted to Dabat conditions among the ten tested
varieties in both the researcher’s and farmer’s selection
criteria.
Farmers’ exposure to evaluate and select new varieties is
an advantage to exploit their potential knowledge of
identifying adapted varieties that best meets their interest
which further helps to include such selections in their
varietal portfolio for seed production. The interaction of
researchers and farmers will also help to design research
objectives to overcome rejection of varieties developed
by researchers alone, enhances the acceptance of
varieties and reduces costs associated with variety
development. Most farmers also recognized well that
improved cultivars will perform better if accompanied by
recommended cultural practices.
The current selection process also demonstrated that
farmers were capable of selecting important traits for
grain yield (yield components) and based on those traits
demonstrated to identify superior varieties adapted to
their locality. Generally, PVS was effective and reliable
for identifying appropriate cultivars through partnership
with resource-poor farmers.
REFERENCES
Asfaw Tilaye (1985). Faba bean in Ethiopia. FABIS, Newsletter, 12: 3-4.
Asfaw T, Geletu B, Alem B (1994). Role of cool-seasons food legumes
and their production constraints in Ethiopian agriculture. In: Asefaw
Tilaye, Geletu Bejiga, Saxena, M.C. and Solh, M.B (eds.). Cool
Season Food Legumes of Ethiopia, (,. Proceedings of the First
National Cool-season Food legumes review Conference, 16-20
December 1993, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Institute of Agricultural
Research, ICARDA- Syria.VII. pp 1-18.
Ceccarelli S, Grando S, Booth RH (1996). International breeding
programmes and resource-poor farmers: crop improvement in difficult
environments. In: Eyzaguirre P, Iwanaga M (eds.). Participatory plant
breeding. Proceeding of a workshop on participatory plant breeding,
26-29 July 1995, Wageningen, The Netherlands. IPGRI, Italy, pp 99-
116.
Mulualem et al. 274
Ceccarelli S, Grando S (2002). Plant breeding with farmers requires
testing the assumptions of conventional plant breeding: Lessons from
the ICARDA barley program. In: Cleveland DA, Soleri D (eds.)
Farmers, scientists and plant breeding: integrating knowledge and
practice. CABI Publishing International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, pp
297-332.
De Boef WS, Thijssen MH (2007). Participatory tools working with
crops, varieties and seeds. A guide for professionals applying
participatory approaches in agrobiodiversity management, crop
improvement and seed sector development. Wageningen,
Wageningen International, 83p.
Dereje Gorfu, Mengistu Hulluka, Tadesse Gebremedhin (1994).
Influence of weather factors on infection rate of checolate spot of
faba bean. Proceedings of crop protection society of Ethiopia, 26-27
April 1994. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp 33-34.
Desta Beyene (1988). Biological nitrogen fixation research on grain
legumes in Ethiopia. In: Bec, D. P. and Materons, L.A. (eds.).
Nitrogen Fixation by Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture.
ICRADA, Marthinus Nizhoff, Dordrecht, Boston. pp 73-78.
Giller KE (2001). Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Cropping systems, 2nd ed.
CABI Publishing, Walling Ford, UK, 448p.
Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984). Statistical procedures for agricultural
research. 2nd ed. John Willey and Sons, New York.
Hebblethwaite PD, Ingram J, Scott RK, Elliot J (1993). Some factors
influencing yield variation of field beans (Vicia faba L.). In: Thompson,
R., (ed.). Proceedings of the Symposium on the Production,
Processing and Utilization of the Field Beans (Vicia faba L.). Bulletin
No. 15, Scottish Horticultural Research Institute, Invergrowie, U.K. pp
20-27.
Haciseferogullari H, Gezer I, Bahtiyarca Y, Menges HO (2003).
Determination of some chemical and physical properties of Sakiz
faba bean (Vicia faba L. Var. major). J. Food Eng., 60: 475-479.
Hanounik SB (1979). Diseases of major food legume crops in Syria. In:
Hawtin GC and Chancellor GJ. (eds.). Food legume improvement
and development. IDRC publ 126e, Ottawa, Canada, pp 98-102.
*Joshi KD, BR Sthapit & JR, Witcombe ( 2001). How narrowly adapted
are the products of decentralised breeding? The spread of rice
varieties from a participatory plant breeding programme in Nepal.
Euphytica, 122: 589–597.
PGRC (1995). Ethiopia: Country Report to the International Technical
Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, Adiss Ababa, Ethiopia. 51p.
SAS (1999). SAS/STAT user’s guide, Version 8. SAS Institute Inc, Cary.
Senayit Yetneberk, Asrat Wondimu (1994). Utilization of cool season
food legumes in Ethiopia. In: Asfaw T, Saxena M, Solh M, Geletu B
(eds.). Cool season food legumes of Ethiopia. Proceedings of the first
national food legumes review conference, 16-20 December 1993,
Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. ICARDA/Institute of Agric. Res., pp. 60-75.
Torres AM, Roman B, Avila CM, Satovic Z, Rubiales D, Sillero JC,
Cubero JI, Moreno MT (2006). Faba bean breeding for resistance
against biotic stresses: Towards application of marker technology.
Euphytica, 147: 67-80.
World Development Report (2008) Agriculture for Development, pp 160-
161; available at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/WDR_0
0_book.pdf.
