Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 31, pp 31149–31164 | Cite as

Physiological characterization of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under abiotic stresses for breeding purposes

  • Anna Cristina LannaEmail author
  • Renato Adolfo Silva
  • Tatiana Maris Ferraresi
  • João Antônio Mendonça
  • Gesimária Ribeiro Costa Coelho
  • Alécio Souza Moreira
  • Paula Arielle Mendes Ribeiro Valdisser
  • Claudio Brondani
  • Rosana Pereira Vianello
Research Article


In the Brazilian wet and dry seasons, common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) are grown under rainfed conditions with unexpected episodes of drought and high temperatures. The objective of this study was to evaluate the physiological mechanisms associated with drought adaptation traits in landraces and line/cultivars of beans from the Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools. Twenty-five genotypes, contrasting in terms of drought tolerance, were evaluated in a phenotyping platform under irrigated and rainfed conditions. Agronomic and physiological parameters such as grain yield, shoot structures, gas exchange, water potential, and osmotic adjustment were evaluated. The stress intensity was estimated to be 0.57, and the grain yield reduction ranged from 22 to 89%. Seven accessions, representative of the Andean and Mesoamerican germplasm (CF 200012, CF 240056, CF 250002, CF 900004, CNF 4497, CNF 7382, and SEA 5), presented superior performance in grain yield with and without stresses. The physiological responses under abiotic stresses were highly variable among the genotypes, and two Mesoamerican accessions (CF 200012 and SEA 5) showed more favorable adaptive responses. As the main secondary physiological traits, gas exchange and osmotic adjustment should be evaluated together with the grain yield to increase the selection efficiency of abiotic stresses-tolerant common bean lines.


Drought High temperature Grain yield Water status Gas exchange 


Funding information

This research received financial support from the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA -

Supplementary material

11356_2018_3012_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (170 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 (PDF 170 kb)


  1. Acosta-Gallegos JA, Adams MW (1991) Plant traits and yield stability of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars under drought stress. J Agric Sci 117:213–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahuja I, de Vos RC, Bones AM, Hall RD (2010) Plant molecular stress responses face climate change. Trends Plant Sci 15:664–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelhas PC, Gonçalves JLM, Sparovek G (2013) Koppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol Z 22:711–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashraf M, Harris JC (2013) Photosynthesis under stressful environments: an overview. Photosynthetica 51(2):163–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bajji M, Lutts S, Kinet JM (2001) Physiological changes after exposure to and recovery from polyethylene glycol-induced water deficit in roots and leaves of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) cultivars differing in drought resistance. J Plant Physiol 157:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck EH, Fettig S, Knake C, Hartig K, Bhattarai T (2007) Specific and unspecific responses of plants to cold and drought stress. J Biosci 32:501–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beebe SE, Rao IM, Cajiao I, Grajales M (2008) Selection for drought resistance in common bean also improves yield in phosphorus limited and favorable environments. Crop Sci 48:582–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beebe SE, Rao IM, Blair MW, Acosta-Gallegos JA (2013) Phenotyping common beans for adaptation to drought. Front Plant Physiol 4:1–20Google Scholar
  9. Benincasa MMP (2003): Análise de crescimento de plantas: noções básicas. Jaboticabal: FUNEP, Breazil. (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  10. Bergonci JI, Bergamaschi H, Berlato MA, Santos AO (2000) Potencial da água na folha como um indicador de déficit hídrico em milho. Pesq Agrop Brasileira 35:1531–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bitocchi E, Bellucci E, Giardini A, Rau D, Rodriguez M, Biagetti E, Santilocchi R, Spagnoletti Zeuli P, Gioia T, Logozzo G, Attene L, Nanni L, Papa R (2013) Molecular analysis of the parallel domestication of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in Mesoamerica and the Andes. New Phytol 197:300–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carvalho FP, França AC, Souza BP, Fialho CMT, Santos JB, Silva AA (2014) Water use efficiency by coffee arabica after glyphosate application. Acta Scientiarum 3(3):373–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen D, Wang S, Cao B, Cao D, Leng G, Li H, Yin L, Shan L, Deng X (2016) Genotypic variation in growth and physiological response to drought stress and re-watering reveals the critical role of recovery in drought adaptation in maize seedlings. Front Plant Sci 6:1241Google Scholar
  14. Cuéllar-Ortiz SM, Arrieta-Montiel MP, Acosta-Gallegos J, Covarrubias AA (2008) Relationship between carbohydrate partitioning and drought resistance in common bean. Plant Cell Environment 31:1399–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Embrapa Arroz e Feijão (2016) Dados de conjuntura da produção de feijão (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) no Brasil (1985–2014). Available at Accessed 1 July 2016. (in Portuguese)
  16. FAO (2016) International Year of Pulses – Nutritious seeds for a sustainable future. Available at Accessed 16 June 2016
  17. FAO-WATER (2016) Land and water division. Available at Accessed 10 August 2016
  18. Feitosa, C (2016) Área de cultivo de soja no Brasil pode diminuir 39% até 2040. Available at Accessed 10 August 2016. (in Portuguese)
  19. Ferreira DF (2011) Sisvar: a computer statistical analysis system. Ciênc Agrotecnol 35(6):1039–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer RA, Maurer R (1978) Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Aust J Agric Res 29:897–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Georgii E, Jin M, Zhao J, Kanawati B, Schmitt-Kopplin P, Albert A, Barbro Winkler J, Schäffner AR (2017) Relationships between drought, heat and air humidity responses revealed by transciptome-metabolome co-analysis. BMC Plant Biol 17:120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graham HP, Ranalli P (1997) Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Field Crop Res 53:131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guimarães CM, Stone LF, Del Peloso MJ, Oliveira JP (2011) Genótipos de feijoeiro comum sob deficiência hídrica. Rev Bras Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental 15:649–656. (in Portuguese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heinemann AB, Ramirez-Villega J, Souza TLPO, Didonet AD, di Stefano JG, Boote KJ, Jarvis A (2016) Drought impact on rainfed common bean production areas in Brazil. Agric Forest Meteorol 225:57–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jin R, Wang Y, Liu R, Gou J, Chan A (2016) Physiological and metabolic changes of purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) in response to drought, heat, and combined stresses. Front Plant Sci 6:1–11Google Scholar
  26. Kahle D, Wickham H (2013) ggmap: spatial visualization with ggplot2. R Journal 5:144–161Google Scholar
  27. Konsens I, Ofir M, Kigel J (1991) The effect of temperature on the production and abscission of flowers and pods in snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Ann Bot 67:391–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lanna AC, Mitsuzono ST, Terra TGR, Vianello RP, Carvalho MAF (2016) Physiological characterization of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes water-stress, induced with contrasting response towards drought. Aust J Crop Sci 10:1–6Google Scholar
  29. Lawlor DW, Cornic G (2002) Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant Cell Environ 25:275–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lawson T, Blatt MR (2014) Stomatal size, speed, and responsiveness impact on photosynthesis and water use efficiency. Plant Physiol 164:1556–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lesk C, Rowhani P, Ramankutty N (2016) Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature 529:84–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Li S, Yu X, Cheng Z, Yu X, Ruan M, Li W, Peng M (2017) Global gene expression analysis reveals crosstalk between response mechanisms to cold and drought stresses in cassava seedlings. Front Plant Sci 8:1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahajan S, Tuteja N (2005) Cold, salinity and drought stresses: an overview. Arch Biochem Biophys 444:139–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mamidi S, Rossi M, Moghaddam SM, Annam D, Lee R, Papa R, McClean PE (2013) Demographic factors shaped diversity in the two gene pools of wild common bean Phaseolus vulgaris L. Heredity 110:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McClean PE, Burridge JC, Beebe S, Rao IM, Porch TG (2011) Crop improvement in the era of climate change: an integrated, multi-disciplinary approach for common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Funct Plant Biol 38:927–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mishra S, Kumar S, Saha B, Awasthi J, Dey M, Panda SK, Sahoo L (2016) Crosstalk between salt, drought, and cold stress in plants: toward genetic engineering for stress tolerance. In: Abiotic Stress Response in Plants, 1. ed. New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  37. Mohamed MF, Schmitz-Eiberger N, Keutgen N, Noga G (2005) Comparative drought postponing and tolerance potentials of two tepary bean lines in relation to seed yield. Afr Crop Sci J 13:49–60Google Scholar
  38. Monterroso VA, Wien HC (1990) Flower and pod abscission due to heat stress in beans. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 115:631–634Google Scholar
  39. Nakano H, Momonoki T, Miyashige T, Otsuka H, Hanada T, Sugimoto A, Nakagawa H, Matsuoka M, Terauchi T, Kobayashi M, Oshiro M, Yasuda K, Vanichwattanarumruk N, Choechuen S, Boonmalison D (1997) ‘Haibushi’: a new variety of snap bean tolerant to heat stress. Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences Journal 5:1–12Google Scholar
  40. Nielsen DC, Nelson NO (1998) Black bean sensitivity to water stress at various growth stages. Crop Sci 38:422–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Omae H, Kumar A, Egawa Y, Kashiwaba K, Shono M (2005) Midday drop of leaf water content related to drought tolerance in snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Plant Prod Sci 8:465–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Omae H, Kumar A, Shono M (2012) Adaptation to high temperature and water deficit in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) during the reproductive period. J Bot 2012:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Petry N, Boy E, Wirth JP, Hurrell RF (2015) Review: the potential of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) as a vehicle for iron biofortification. Nutrients 7:1144–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Polanía JA, Rao IM, Mejía S, Beebe SE, Cajiao C (2012) Morpho-physiological characteristics of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) related to drought adaptation. Acta Agron 61:179–187Google Scholar
  45. Polanía JA, Poschenrieder C, Beebe S, Rao IM (2016) Effective use of water and increased dry matter partitioned to grain contribute to yield of common bean improved for drought resistance. Front Plant Sci 7:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ramirez-Vallejo P, Kelly JD (1998) Traits related to drought resistance in common bean. Euphytica 99:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rao IM, Beebe S, Polanía J, Ricaurte J, Cajiao C, Polanía J, Garcia R (2004) Evaluation of drought resistance and associated traits in advanced lines. In: Annual Report 2004. Project IP-1: Bean Improvement for the Tropics, Cali, Colombia (CIAT). pp. 5–13Google Scholar
  48. Rao IM, Beebe SE, Polanía J, Grajales MA, Cajiao C, García R, Ricaurte J, Rivera M (2009) Physiological basis of improved drought resistance in common bean: The contribution of photosynthate mobilisation to grain. Paper presented at Interdrought III: The 3rd International Conference on Integrated Approaches to Improve Crop Production under Drought-Prone Environments, Shanghai, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  49. Rao IM, Beebe S, Polanía J, RICAURTE J, CAJIAO C, GARCIA R, RIVERA M (2013) Can tepary bean be a model for improvement of drought resistance in common bean? Afr Crop Sci J 21:265–281Google Scholar
  50. Ribeiro RV, Santos MG, Souza GM, Machado EM, Oliveira RF, Angelocci LR, Pimentel C (2004) Environmental effects on photosynthetic capacity of bean genotypes. Pesq Agrop Brasileira 39:615–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ribeiro RV, Santos MG, Machado EC, Oliveira RF (2008) Photochemical heat-shock response in common bean leaves as affected by previous water deficit. Russ J Plant Physiol 55:350–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosales MA, Ocampo E, Rodríguez-Valentín R, Olvera-Carrillo Y, Acosta-Gallegos JA, Covarrubias AA (2012) Physiological analysis of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars uncovers characteristics related to terminal drought resistance. Plant Physiol Biochem 56:24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schneider KA, Rosales-Serna R, Ibarra-Perez F, Cazares-Enriquez B, Acosta Gallegos JA, Ramirez-Vallejo P, Wassimi N, Kelly JD (1997) Improving common bean performance under drought stress. Crop Sci 37:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scholander PF, Hammel HT, Brandstreet ED, Hemmingsen EA (1965) Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148:339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scott AJ, Knott M (1974) A cluster analysis method form grouping means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics 30:507–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shi G, Zhu-Ge F, Liu Z, Le L (2014) Phosynthetic responses and acclimation of two castor bean cultivars to repeated drying-wetting cycles. J Plant Interact 9(1):783–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sponchiado BN, White JW, Castillo JA, Jones PG (1989) Root growth of four common bean cultivars in relation to drought tolerance in environments with contrasting soil types. Exp Agric 25:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Subbarao GV, Johansen AC, Slinkard RC, Rao IM, Saxena NP, Chauhan YS (1995) Strategies for improving drought resistance in grain legumes. Crit Rev Plant Sci 14:469–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taiz L, Zeiger E. (2009) Fisiologia Vegetal. 4th ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed. Berasil. (in Poretuguese)Google Scholar
  60. Tardieu F (2013) Plant response to environmental conditions: assessing potential production, water demand, and negative effects of water deficit. Front Physiol 4:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tohme J, Jones P, Beebe S, Iwanaga M (1995) The combined use of agroecological and characterization data to establish the CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris core collection. In: Core collections of plant genetic resources. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK. pp. 95–107Google Scholar
  62. Vieira C, Paula JR PTJ, Borém A (2006) Feijão. 1th ed. Viçosa: UFV, Brazil. (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  63. Wilhite DA, Sivakumar MVK, Pulwarty R (2014) Managing drought risk in a changing climate: the role of National Drought Policy. Weather and Climate Extreme 3:4–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yang ZB, Eticha D, Rotter B, Rao IM, Horst WJ (2011) Physiological and molecular analysis of polyethylene glycol-induced reduction of aluminium accumulation in the root tips of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). New Phytol 192:99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zandalinas SI, Mittler R, Balfagón D, Arbona V, Gómez-Cadenas A (2017) Plant adaptations to the combination of drought and high temperatures. Minireview. Physiol PlantGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhu Y-N, Shi D-Q, Ruan M-B, Zhang L.L., Meng Z.H., Liu J., Yang W.C. (2013) Transcriptome analysis reveals crosstalk of responsive genes to multiple abiotic stresses in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Sun M, ed. PLoS One 8(11): e80218Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Cristina Lanna
    • 1
    Email author
  • Renato Adolfo Silva
    • 2
  • Tatiana Maris Ferraresi
    • 1
  • João Antônio Mendonça
    • 1
  • Gesimária Ribeiro Costa Coelho
    • 1
  • Alécio Souza Moreira
    • 3
  • Paula Arielle Mendes Ribeiro Valdisser
    • 1
  • Claudio Brondani
    • 1
  • Rosana Pereira Vianello
    • 1
  1. 1.Embrapa Rice and BeansSanto Antônio de GoiásBrazil
  2. 2.Limagrain Brazil S. AGoiâniaBrazil
  3. 3.Embrapa Cassava and Fruticulture/Araraquara Advanced FieldAraraquaraBrazil

Personalised recommendations